Hello:

There was a drug bust on the San Diego campus yesterday. It was mostly pot with some coke and some ecstasy thrown in... It was just your normal bust...

I saw the coverage on CNN headline news (that's all I got these days). What surprised me, was the surprise of the announcer. He was just shocked that this took place. I mean, he was REALLY, REALLY shocked! He asked whether the correspondent thought this was going on on other campuses in the country...

What??

He evidently, thinks the drug war is working. He is living in la la land. Do YOU think the drug war is working too??

excon

I don't see it in terms of war . I see a bunch of University of San Diego students who decided to violate the law and sell drugs . They were directly responsible for the death of 2 students who od'ed on their product. This isn't a case of a bunch of students selling themselve a joint or 2 . This was hard drugs that I don't think even you believe should be available for recreational consumption.

Hello again, tom:

You point out the real problem that results when the government classifies pot as equally as dangerous as the real hard drugs. You shouldn't be surprised when people believe it.

Clearly, this was and IS a typical college campus. You can get ANY drug there. It's NOT the pot dealers fault that some guy sells something that is harmful. The POT dealers didn't harm anybody! Not a soul. Even you don't think so.

excon

No it is not working. I live in the midst of druggies and dealers and IF 'n when the police actually decide to do something about the drugs after 'watching' them for 2 years or more they simply get out within a week or two and back to the same old same old. I call the jail the place with the revolving door--they are in and out and in and out...
When I say 'Where you been?'
They say 'vacation'
I laugh 'haha code word whoscow!'

It is not working in the case of pot, just like it did not work in the case of prohibition of alcohol, or if there were to be a war against tobacco. People enjoy good food, beverages, smokes, and evidently drugs. So ban the hard stuff and regulate the soft.

College drug sting snags justice, security majors, scores of others - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/06/sdsu.bust/)

FOUR POUNDS of cocaine! A "normal bust." :eek: Where do you live EX?

Wow, and I thought kids were going to college to LEARN something.

The article does not state whether these drugs were homegrown or imported :confused:

Cocaine is not grown in the US, and no the drug war has been lost ever since the Chinese kicked the British out of their country, for trying to control the opium trade. Such public desplays make the enforcement guys look good, like there doing a good job, but the haven't even touched the tip of the iceberg, and the campus in question already has replaced the dealers and the dope. This is a real old story, that's been going on since the 60's on the college campuses, across the nation. What? You thought the only dope heads where uneducated miscreants, in the ghetto?

College drug sting snags justice, security majors, scores of others - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/06/sdsu.bust/)

FOUR POUNDS of cocaine! A "normal bust." :eek: Where do you live EX?

Wow, and I thought kids were going to college to LEARN something.

The article does not state whether these drugs were homegrown or imported :confused:

I live in Philly and a tiny little bust of 4 kilo's of coke wouldn't even be mentioned on the news or in the newspaper. Let me know when they make a somewhat major bust of say a 100 kilo's that happens every other month in Philly. 4 Kilo's is laughable. But my question is where do you live in the box that you think 4 kilo's is a lot?

And no the drug war is not working I say Legalize everything from pot to herion If everything was legal the government would control it (not like they don't now) and there would be a lot less violence in city's like Philly and NY etc...

SE USA:

I'm amazed that 4 pounds of cocaine is nothing to you all.

Have you been so desensitized to the societal effects of drugs that you just give up and think " what the heck" legalize everything.

Meth and weed are bigger issues here.

Have you all not seen or know what drugs do to families, children, marriages?

Do you not care?

Hello again:

So, it's about 5 to 2.5 of you who don't think the drug war is working. I can't tell exactly where tom comes down. I think he knows it's not working, but he's cool with it.

So, why are we still doing it? Why isn't anybody talking about it? You DO know that we can't ignore it forever. It's going to consume us if it hasn't already.

excon

Hello again, in:

We were posting at the same time. I'd like to address your concerns...

Yes, indeedy do, I know what drugs do to family's. My question for you is, if the drug war is working, why is it STILL doing it to family's?? Your statement alone proves the present approach isn't working.

Drugs should be legalized and regulated just like we regulate liquor and tobacco. At the same time, we need to offer drug rehabilitation on demand to anybody... I suggest further that we transfer our efforts from the legal framework to the health framework.

If we did that, I think drug use would come out of the closet. I don't think many people really want to be addicted, but there's nowhere for them to go now.

Yes, a few people will try drugs, but I think the idea is overblown. From my perspective, everybody who has a propensity to use drugs is already using them. I don't think there's many people just chomping at the bit to try 'em when they become legal. Do you know anybody like that? I don't.

Finally, the price would drop sooooo much that the black market would be virtually wiped out if ONE FELL SWOOP. Yes, I suppose there'll be the odd pot dealer around just like there's still the odd bootlegger.

As an addendum, I would also suggest that if we ended the drug war, and let the non violent drug offenders out, there'll be TONS of room to keep the really bad guys locked up for a loooong time. Prison building would STOP being a growth industry. That's a good thing. Do you know that we are responsible for about a quarter of the worlds prison population??

Hopefully, that'll give you something to think about.

excon

I know exactly what cocaine does to a family. It is an ugly ugly thing. Can't trust the person, can't even look at the person because of the dried up blood and coke encrusted on their nose. It is a horrible thing. I have also seen how alcohol ruins a family (it is actually worst then cocaine). But I don't see anyone running out to get prohibition reinstated.

The facts are people are going to do what they want to do plain and simple. So why not tax the hell out of it make it safer for the people who don't use the drugs. If it were legal 95% of the gun violence in Philadelphia would be gone. Mothers would be able to take their kids to the park again because they wouldn't have to worry about the junkie sitting on the swing set waiting for his dealer. There would never be a story on the news again of a little girl walking to school getting shot because of drug deal gone bad.

Ex :

For the most part I agree.

As to drug rehab, I doubt if more than 10% of users would actually consider it.

There are legalized/ regulated drugs that are being abused - hydrocodone, oxycodone, alprazolam, alcohol, tobacco etc... and just like illegal drugs, making them legal does not make them any safer or prevent addiction, dui[s], and all the sociobehavioral consequences.

I do agree about prison / drugs / non-violent offenders.

If current illegal drugs were to be made legal, I think there should be just as strong a law regarding personal responsibility. By this I mean,

20 years from now, drug users that have fried any mental capability they had can not sue the manufacturer[s] because they turned out to be a looser by their own choice.
You can't blame Pcp for your murder spree, or crack for the damage that it did to your child. Do you know what I mean?

Surprised it made the news, some college PR people dropped the ball there. We did a large drug bust on a local campus here a few years ago.
Anywhere else, I would have been standing by my police car with drugs, and bongs and money all over the hood of the car. Four ** arrests** well I latter went looking for the booking sheets to check for the court dates. Well somewhere along the lines, those students did get suspended one semester but the college arranged for charges to be droped, no mention in any newspaper.

. They were directly responsible for the death of 2 students who od'ed on their product..

The students were surely responsible for their own deaths:confused: . If you take something that you know might kill you, and you die, then that's your own d*mn fault.

I don't see why we criminalise this, in the same way I don't understand why we should criminalise suicide. In general, taking drugs and suicide has very similar results.

If it were legal, the criminals wouldn't be able to make money, and buy a bank, or a yacht. Back in the 80's drug profits, financed rebels all over the world, just ask Ollie North.

Good point Talaniman! And all the antidrug commercial today say Illegal drugs help support terrorism. If they were legal no more drug money for terrorist's!

The problem with legalizing drugs is that the government doesn't have backing for it. It's not a big enough issue for most people who want it legalized to refuse to vote for someone who doesn't want to legalize drugs.

It's why America needs a third party that actually tries to fix issues instead of pandering to different special interest groups.

It's not a big enough issue for most people who want it legalized to refuse to vote for someone who doesn't want to legalize drugs.Hello michealb:

Very true. But they have a lobby. If you people mean what you say, send a contribution to Norml. The more money they have, the bigger their voice.

excon

The problem with legalizing drugs is that the government doesn't have backing for it. It's not a big enough issue for most people who want it legalized to refuse to vote for someone who doesn't want to legalize drugs.

It's why America needs a third party that actually trys to fix issues instead of pandering to different special interest groups.
I think you are right; the 'constituency' that would vote for drug legalization is basically turned on and tuned out; the folks that show up at the polls want drug sellers prosecuted and sentenced to long, hard time. There is a very destructive, Puritanical thread within American politics, and right now it is presently coalesced around prosecuting drug sellers and users.

I don't think it's working.

I think the BIGGEST lie out there is that pot is a "gateway" drug. Well, if you can buy harder drugs from the same guy that gives you the "soft" drugs, of COURSE that guy is going to try to get you hooked on the more expensive stuff! More money for him!

If you could buy pot someplace that didn't have harder drugs, like in Amsterdam or in British Columbia, then you wouldn't have that risk.

Besides--when's the last time you heard about pot, or some guy/gal ON pot killing someone, even accidentally? Compare that with the last time you heard about someone killing someone else because they were drunk--HOW often does that commercial say someone is killed by a drunk driver, again?

I think it's ridiculous that people think that the only people that do drugs are the uneducated, poor masses of under-intelligent people. Most of the drug users *I* know are very successful people--they kind of have to be, in order to afford the drugs.

Legalize and regulate! Drugs wouldn't tear apart families if you could get help without risk of being arrested for asking for it!

And yes, I'm a (lapsed) member of NORML. (I swear, it's just been a tough year. I will pay my dues as soon as I can!)

Many of you will argue that gun laws only give all the power to the bad guys.

So why doesn't it stand to reason to you that drug laws only give more power to the bad guys too?

Of course it's not working.

And of course we will continue to fight it, and spend oodles and oodles of money to fight a battle we will never win.

Because anyone who says we should stop the war on drugs hates children... or something like that.

Of course it's not working.

And of course we will continue to fight it, and spend oodles and oodles of money to fight a battle we will never win.

Because anyone who says we should stop the war on drugs hates children... or something like that.


Am I detecting sarcasm here?

And Skell... laws BANNING drugs or alcohol or guns only give the power to the bad guys.

REGULATING those things gives the power to the good guys.

And frankly, all things considered---people believing in personal responsibility would go a long way towards not needing that sort of regulation at all.

Of course it's not working.

And of course we will continue to fight it, and spend oodles and oodles of money to fight a battle we will never win.

Because anyone who says we should stop the war on drugs hates children... or something like that.
I don't hate mine, and they are past the age that I can have much influence on their decision to buy. So, if one of them were to buy pot, where would the most reliable seller be located? As long as pot is illegal, it will be somewhere in the shadows. I would prefer the transaction to take place 'in the open', and subject to tax if necessary.

I see synnen has her sarcasm detecter on! :D

So, if illegal drugs were now legal, we would not have congress asking Roger Clemens questions? :)

I don't live in the States, I'm in Canada so some of the issues you all are dealing with in regards to drugs are a bit different than the issues here.

Are we winning the war, no, are we fighting the battle, I believe we're trying, but we're failing miserably.

Personally, legalizing drugs is the way I think we should go. Sometimes things lose there desirability if they are no longer forbidden. Also, taxes on the sale of drugs would be astronomical, talk about helping the economy.

I'm for the legalization of drugs, that's the only way we can even hope to gain a modicum of control.

Oh yeah, it's working!

Reason Magazine - Hit & Run > Tracy Ingle: Another Drug War Outrage (http://reason.com/blog/show/126284.html?redux)

:eek:

Am I detecting sarcasm here?

And Skell....laws BANNING drugs or alcohol or guns only give the power to the bad guys.

REGULATING those things gives the power to the good guys.

And frankly, all things considered---people believing in personal responsibility would go a long way towards not needing that sort of regulation at all.

Not sarcasm towards your thoughts at all Synn. Frankly I agree with you. My comment was directed at those who have argued previously that even REGULATING guns is a bad idea and won't work. Many on here think it should be a free for all with everyone carrying what they want. I wanted to see if they had the same thoughts on drugs.

Oh, I meant the sarcasm from Jillean :)

But yeah... I tend to follow your arguments pretty well, Skell. Don't always agree with you, but that's okay! We don't have to agree on everything. You at least make me think most of the time and double check my opinion on stuff--which is good! I like to make sure I'm not just reacting, and that I'm not believing something because I always have--having valid reasons for my thoughts is important to me.

So... keep it coming :)

No, the war on drugs is not working, but it can. There has to be a way. We need to fight harder. These drugs are grabbing a hold of our children - of adults and not letting them go. They are destroying cities and schools.

Legalize? No, not ever is my opinion. Personally, I do not want to be in the car next to someone hepped up on crack, which would then be legal. I don't want to live next to the person hepped up on heroine, who in the privacy of their home, is now injesting a legal drug, which promotes irractic behavior.

I think there is a way to get rid of these drugs, but way too many people are making way too much money for it ever to go away.

The day the mess of drugs become legal is the day I would be petrified of.

And to those of you who sell drugs for profit alone, shame on you and the destruction you are causing.

Allheart--

By your reasoning, we should get rid of ALL drugs, including those that are helpful and prescribed by physicians. Frankly, the possibility of the person in the car next to me being hopped up on prescription painkillers is higher than the possibility of them being on crack or heroin.

And really--alcohol kills more people every year than any other single drug out there... are you pushing for us to go back to prohibition?

If you legalize drugs, at least you can regulate them, and you can have an idea of who is on which drugs--plus, since the people selling the GOOD drugs would be the government, so it would be harder to escalate from the "soft" drugs to the "hard" drugs, simply because the same dealer wouldn't have both.

Until we recognize that the first step to getting the people currently hooked on drugs the help they need is to legalize the drug they are doing so they need not fear arrest when ASKING for that help... well, they're just going to keep doing that drug, then.

Unless someone can show me the statistics where any ONE drug has killed as many people as alcohol has, or for that matter--as many as CARS have (especially driven by teenagers with cell phones)--well, I'm just going to have to believe that regulation is going to make it harder to get hooked and easier watch those who may have a problem.

Besides! Right now, we're throwing away MILLIONS every year on the War on Drugs! Think of the money we could MAKE (and put towards education!) if we taxed the hell out of legalized drugs!

We tax the hell out of legalized tobacco and that has not stopped the criminal enterprise of smuggling them .

You think a pot smoker will not grow their own plants because the government sells pot ?

You think that converting legal drugs into illegal ones doesn't happen ? Why then did the government pull Ephedra products off the shelf ?

Are you suggesting that all the illegal drugs become prescription ? How then would that stop the criminal trafficiting of drugs if it is simply a matter of supply and demand ?

I would suggest that there are as many if not more drivers on the road impaired by the residual remains of their pot smoking than are impaired by prescription drugs . Can I prove it ? Nope . Most often blood tests are not conducted after a routine motor vehicle accident. You can cite the alcohol stats because testing is done for that violation.

Again... by your reasoning... ALL drugs should be illegal, since they convert the legal ones into illegal ones.

Tell me again how making alcohol illegal should happen, then, since that's at least as dangerous as any other drug out there. Tell me how the example of Prohibition couldn't possibly be true for any OTHER drug out there.

And really--the ILLEGAL consumption of alcohol causes problems (teen drunkenness, college bingeing, etc). Since alcohol is destroying our youth, let's make it illegal! I mean, my god! Not only are these kids destroying themselves, they're taking OTHER people with them when they drink and drive!

And while we're on the subject of people being impaired while driving--let's make CELL PHONES illegal too! Too many people are being injured and killed DAILY by people trying to talk or text on their cell phone while driving! And they HAVE regulations for those two "impair-ers".

You're right... let's NOT legalize drugs. Instead, let's make illegal everything ELSE that is getting people killed every day.

By your logic then anything dangerous should be legal ? All drugs should be legal ? Why not allow for general consumption black nightshade ;and fox glove... among a large list of other toxic "natural" products ?

Black Nightshade (http://www.asianonlinerecipes.com/herbs-health/black-nightshade.php)

Foxglove (http://www.herbs2000.com/herbs/herbs_foxglove.htm)

There are beneficial parts of both plants.

The PROBLEM isn't the drugs, or dangerous "side effects" of things like driving or cellphones or for that matter airplanes (my god, people die on those things all the time!)--the problem is personal responsibility.

I don't want my government to be my nanny. I think I have grown to an adult with reasonable thinking processes and can make my own decisions when it comes to my personal welfare. I should be able to drive without a seatbelt if I want (though I don't) or skip a helmet on a motorcycle. Why should the GOVERNMENT decide what is best for me?

We've become a sue-happy, it's-not-my-fault, and if-it-were-bad-for-me-it-would-be-illegal society. People KNOW that smoking isn't good for them. People KNOW that drinking isn't good for them--yet the lawsuits march on, and people continue to do all sorts of things that aren't good for them. That's okay! That's their choice!

The consequences of people being able to make their own choices, though, should be that they have to LIVE with those choices. No Welfare, no suing, no whining and crying that they didn't KNOW it wasn't good for them.

The recreational, occasional use of alcohol is accepted by society. Now... be honest... how many people do you know that have NEVER tried pot? I'm not talking little kids, or your gramma (though I know for a fact that my gramma smoked it occasionally). I'm talking people in your everyday life.

By the way--just in case you think I'm some druggie advocating the legalization of my own personal pastime, I'm completely clean. I could pass any drug test you threw at me. Hell, I haven't even had a drink in well over a month, and even that drink was sharing a bottle of wine with my mom over the course of an afternoon.

If you legalized drugs, then you could have those random tests at the side of the road like you do for alcohol. SOP could be a breathalizer and a quick blood test for other drugs. DUI stands for "Driving Under the Influence", you know. That means under the influence of prescription drugs as well as alcohol and/or illegal drugs. You can already be arrested for endangering the lives of others with your foolish notions of how "okay" you are to drive.

Honestly, I'd just like to see the wasted money for the War on Drugs put to better use.

You want logic, They will never go after the people who bring dope to America, and profit from the poison. They arrest and confiscate just enough to justify putting Americans in jail for sale possession and use, while not addressing the root cause of the problem. People do drugs to feel good, and then get hooked trying to keep feeling good. Until the real problem of getting the big fish out of the water is addressed, this war will never work. Legalizing it would take it out of the shadows, and back alleys, and put the profits to something useful I think. Those who want drugs have always been able to get them, and no armed force will ever stop that. Sink a few ships bringing tons of heroin from Afghanistan (90% of the heroin comes from there) or burning the crops at it source, you might start making a difference or at least send a message to the rich guys with the boats and planes. Until then, this isn't a war at all, like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound. It just makes those making band aids rich, and doesn't solve a darn thing.

Tal, I agree with you 100%.

Too many making too much money bringing that mess in here. We need to get to the head of the snake for this thing to work.

Synn - I agree alcohol can and is just as destructive, but shouldn't be the place to point to support legalizing street drugs. And the reason the chances are greater for you to live next to or drive in front of or behind someone on too many painkillers vice illegal street drugs, is perhaps, because the painkillers are legal and heroine and crack is not. Hopefully.

Allheart,

I'm just saying that it comes back to personal responsibility no matter WHAT the distracting substance is--cell phone, text message, drugs, alcohol, screaming baby, I don't care.

If you can't safely be driving/working/walking down the street due to tiredness, inattention, false perceptions because of drinking/drugs--then the punishment should be EQUAL for all of the above.

I just resent the heck out of people that point at drugs and say "There is the problem with society! Too many people are using drugs, making it unsafe for the rest of us!" I mean, honestly--do you really think MORE people are going to run out and try drugs than run out and try them now just because it's LEGAL?

I'm honestly more afraid of the people who come to work sick as dogs and spread their germs around than I am of the people who come to work high. Of course, I work in an office environment--but I think I'd still feel the same way if I worked construction. Distracted is distracted, whether it's from drugs or a fever... or from Nyquil/Sudafed... or from a hangover.

And really... it's not like the basics would change anyway. You'd still have companies with a No Drug Policy. You'd still get arrested for operating a motor vehicle. You'd still get arrested for creating a public disturbance. The only difference is that there would be a safe place to get your drugs, so that you'd know they weren't altered, or laced, or whatever. You also wouldn't have the same place selling you the drugs trying to push ANOTHER drug on you. I mean, you don't see bars saying "dude...forget the beer. Try this Everclear!"

Legalizing would get rid of the vast majority of street dealers as well--many of whom are the ones who target kids.

Let's say we legalized all drugs, and regulated them. Who's to say that regulation from one drug to the next has to be the same? Some drugs should be treated like alcohol is--such as pot. You can buy it, you can take it home, you can have it at a hash bar--as long as you use it responsibly. Other drugs, the harder stuff like crack and crystal meth--those you can only use in a secure facility, and only when you have arranged for transportation FROM the facility. There are as many ways of regulation as people have imagination. This doesn't need to be an all-or-nothing thing!

I just think that the money spent fighting drugs could be better spent on educating people about drugs, and if it's legal, there will be FAR fewer court/jail issues over stupid stuff, and the cops could better focus on what's really important instead of petty drug raids.

The history of man, he can always come up with a new dope. I know people who feel better crushing and snorting aspirin. Legal and cheap.

Here is a different angle.

There needs to be a distinction between a drug that is ADDICTIVE, legal or illegal, versus drugs that are not.

Addiction by definition is a maladaptive BEHAVIOR. As such the legal status of an addictive drug does not change its potential for addiction. These substances are addictive because of the way they effect the neurotransmitters in the reward center of the brain.
That is why legal potentially addictive dugs such as oxycodone, morphine, demerol, valium are etc.. "controlled." We know they are potentially addictive and care has to be taken in how they are used.

Does the average person understand neurophysiology and pharmacology? Do you think your average teenager of the "its not going to happen to me, I'm immortal" mindset is going to fully understand the implications of using drugs? Come on - we have kids "huffing" in order to get high.

Making current illegal drugs - cocaine, pot, heroin, ectasy, crack etc... legal only exposes a larger population of people to the potential of addiction, leading to a larger potential population of addicts. Is the "tax" revenue going to offset the social costs?

Ex -

If the question is just about pot - sure I'm for legalization. :rolleyes: Crack, heroin etc... I'm not so sure of. :(


Skell:

Guns - 2nd amendment.

There is no constitutional amendment or "right" to get high on drugs. :)

The drug war is not working and I don't think it will ever work.
There will always be a problem in this country. Parents can get more educated, people can get more educated about drug use. If it's going to happen in your family usually you didn't expect it. Learning about early signs and early intervention, instead of thinking that it will work itself out. It never works itself out without intervention.
So the war on drugs, still continues on.
We do need to get directly to the source of were this is coming in from instead of bombing Iraq, let's bomb the fields in Afghanistan were they grow the poppy plants. Every time they plant a new crop we should take it out, any other country as well. Arresting the little people on the streets doesn't solve the problem, meeting them at the boarder could help, but look at how many sneak by our boarder patrol everyday and bring it in. Check our boats, ships and planes. Train more drug sniffing dogs and bring them to the sites, such as the boarder. About legalizing drugs the only thing I would consider is Marajana.

Should we also make all legal drugs OTC ?

Prescription drug abuse surging

LOS ANGELES, May 18 (UPI) -- Healthcare workers and dishonest patients are filling U.S. streets with potentially addictive prescription medications, officials say.

Also contributing to the problem are pharmacy thefts, robberies and burglaries, the Los Angeles Times reported Sunday.

Additionally, there are prescription forgeries and Internet pharmacies that require little information before shipping drugs, the newspaper said.

"Unlike illicit drug use, which shows a continuing downward trend, prescription drug abuse ... has seen a continual rise through the 1990s and has remained stubbornly steady ... during recent years," Dr. Nora D. Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, told a congressional hearing in March.

Local law enforcement officials say the illegal use of prescription drugs as street narcotics has surged.

"What we are seeing is that prescription drugs ... are quickly becoming the drug of choice and abuse," said police Lt. Dennis Vrooman of Murrieta, Calif.

Prescription drug abuse surging - UPI.com (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/05/18/prescription_drug_abuse_surging/7468/)

Nope.

Those drugs are legal and regulated.

I propose we stop worrying so much about piddly little marijuana dealers and worry more about doctors writing illegal scrips. Start putting DOCTORS in jail for "petty little drug deals". In other words--it's already regulated. Spend more time actually REGULATING the regulated drugs, and less worrying about whether my friends and I are smoking up on Saturday night.

I'm for decriminalising the use of all drugs, as long as that's all your doing. Pay the fine go home, as its stupid to spend jail time for toking, when murderers and thieves, are running scott free.

I'm for decriminalising the use of all drugs, as long as thats all your doing. Pay the fine go home, as its stupid to spend jail time for toking, when murderers and thieves, are running scott free.


EXACTLY!

Start actually spending time and money enforcing child support, or actually prosecuting thieves, murderers, rapists, child abuse, etc. Stop wasting the time and money on non-violent drug users and actually go after those people who are hurting someone other than themselves.

Yes, it is so true about prescription drugs becoming a major problem. I really wonder how they will battle that one. I guess the doctor will have to decide if the patient really needs the medication or is it just a habit. I know that we need to remove the license of a doctor that is signing prescriptions away like candy.
I'm starting school again and going to become an addictions counselor. I hope that I can make a difference and straighten out some lives, I have a lot to learn, but I can't wait to start the new adventure.

Nope.

Those drugs are legal and regulated.

I propose we stop worrying so much about piddly little marijuana dealers and worry more about doctors writing illegal scrips. Start putting DOCTORS in jail for "petty little drug deals". In other words--it's already regulated. Spend more time actually REGULATING the regulated drugs, and less worrying about whether or not my friends and I are smoking up on Saturday night.


*** There are already laws in place.

*** Most doctors have "drug contracts" detailing the proper use of controlled substances.

*** Rather than risk jail / malpractice / the hassle dealing with drug seekers, many doctors do not prescribe controlled substances. - The people who really do need these medicines then suffer, and the street value of these controlled substances goes up.

*** The fault of ADDICTION is with the user. No doctor or drug company is forcing them to use these substances in an improper manner. Purdue did not say - crush oxycontin [ long acting oxycodone / percocet ] so you can get a quicker and more powerful high. The ADDICT did this to themselves.

*** Even if you made all drugs legal - it does not change their ADDICTIVENESS.

*** People will still be put in jail for the results of their ADDICTION - dui, domestic violence, assault, child abuse / neglect, theft / robbery etc... I venture to say that the cost to society will be higher.

I agree. It all comes back to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

So... make those crimes that people commit when high have double the normal consequences. Make it that the FIRST time you're caught high with a kid in your custody, you lose the kid, and any others that you might have. Period. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, and those kids now are adoptable because they've been taken away before they're 14 with a drug habit themselves. Make it so that if you're caught operating machinery while high (And I'd include alcohol in this) it's published out there for all employers to see, and you can no longer work with any form of machinery--AND you can not collect welfare.

There's a HUGE difference between occasional use of a substance (including cold medicines, alcohol, and prescribed drugs) and addiction. I find it ridiculous that *I* have to sign my life away, have 2 forms of ID, and provide my SSN just to get the REAL Sudafed--because some idiot decided that it could be used to make a better drug.

I still stand by my first reasoning: If you're not going to legalize drugs, and are going to continue to waste money trying to counter it--well, then get rid of alcohol and cigarettes too. They're addictive, they kill people, and well, really--how do they differ from OTHER drugs?

Ooooh! Let's get rid of caffeine, too! People abuse that all the time! I know that *I* am addicted to caffeine! I get cranky and ruin peoples' days when I don't have it. I know some people that could kill with a look when they haven't had their coffee! Let's make THAT illegal too! I mean, who KNOWS how many kids have parents yell at them and verbally abuse them before coffee! Let's do it for the KIDS, for god's sake!

(seriously--can anyone NOT see how ridiculous the rhetoric is about keeping drugs illegal?)

There are 10 drugs that were legal that have been pulled from the market in the last decade .
Rezulin: Given fast-track approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Rezulin was linked to 63 confirmed deaths and probably hundreds more. "We have real trouble," a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) physician wrote in 1997, just a few months after Rezulin's approval. The drug wasn't taken off the market until 2000.

Lotronex: Against concerns of one of its own officers, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Lotronex in February 2000. By the time it was withdrawn 9 months later, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had received reports of 93 hospitalizations, multiple emergency bowel surgeries, and 5 deaths.

Propulsid: A top-selling drug for many years, this drug was linked to hundreds of cases of heart arrhythmias and over 100 deaths.

Redux: Taken by millions of people for weight loss after its approval in April 1996, Redux was soon linked to heart valve damage and a disabling, often lethal pulmonary disorder. Taken off the market in September 1997.

Pondimin: A component of Fen-Phen, the diet fad drug. Approved in 1973, Pondimin's link to heart valve damage and a lethal pulmonary disorder wasn't recognized until shortly before its withdrawal in 1997.

Duract: This painkiller was taken off the market when it was linked to severe, sometimes fatal liver failure.

Seldane: America's and the world's top-selling antihistamine for a decade, it took the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 5 years to recognize that Seldane was causing cardiac arrhythmias, blackouts, hospitalizations, and deaths, and another 8 years to take it off the market.

Hismanal: Approved in 1988 and soon known to cause cardiac arrhythmias, the drug was finally taken off the market in 1999.

Posicor: Used to treat hypertension, the drug was linked to life-threatening drug interactions and more than 100 deaths.

Raxar: Linked to cardiac toxicities and deaths.

Others like ephed as you note are restricted because the drugs were being abused . By the logic that is being proposed here there is no drug that should not be available to the consumer. Should the 10 items above be permitted back into the market ?

The drugs you mention, that were pulled from the market, were NOT being abused. They were being used for the purpose for which they were made. I doubt anyone went out and tried selling those drugs for a quick feel-good high on the black market.

I'm basically saying, really, that if stupid people want to pull THEMSELVES out of the gene pool (I mean, come ON, already--who Doesn't"T know that Crack Kills or that Meth is BAD juju?) then let them. Fewer stupid people in the end, imo.

I'm not saying that people should just be able to go do whatever the heck they want--there would still be restrictions on HOW those drugs could be used. For example, with no redeeming features whatsoever, Crystal Meth would only be available to those who already show an addiction, and then only in a place where they could not hurt anyone else. You could STILL regulate the illegal sale of drugs. Selling liquor without a license is a federal offense, too--and so is selling to the wrong clientele, like, say--you can't sell cigarettes to 5 year olds.

But you wouldn't be wasting tax dollars trying to hunt down every guy with a pot plant in his apartment, and every idiot smoking crack in the comfort of their own home.

Honest to god--how hard is it to think of recreational drugs like you do alcohol? Yes, alcohol ruins some peoples' lives, but other people use it responsibly. You can be prosecuted for the illegal activites you do while intoxicated--like driving, or stabbing someone with a pen, or whatever. You can do that with other drugs too!

YES, there would be an initial surge. But I doubt that marijuana would continue to be a "gateway" drug if you didn't have to buy your marijuana from someone who was pushing you to buy the more expensive, more addictive drugs.

The drugs you bring up, Tomder, are something of a different topic. Do I believe that ALL drugs should be legal? Probably not. There are a lot of things constantly coming on the market from pharmaceudical companies. Do I think that doctor's getting kickbacks from those same pharm companies should be highly suspect? Absolutely. But, as I said, that's something of a different topic entirely.

Hello tom:

Obfuscation won't help you win this argument.

Yes, of course, the federal government should remove ANY harmful product. Maybe if the FDA had done it's job to begin with, we wouldn't have to remove them...

But, that's not the conversation we're having here.

You know what's silly about you drug warriors, is that when faced with the fact that the drug war isn't working, you always say, well, let's get tougher... Let's really crack down... Not working yet?? Well, we're not tough enough yet...

Maybe you'll get it when everybody is in jail except you. But, even then, I doubt you will.

excon

I'm just responding the fallacious argument that says since some things are legal they all should be.

I'm actually okay with those drugs being on the market. Of course I'd expect the FDA to label them as non safe drugs and require that the packaging says so. If a sound minded adult wants to take those drugs for some reason I don't see why the government would stop them. I suspect you wouldn't be able to get those drugs anyway because the drug makers would probably stop making the product anyway once it got a warning label.

I'm actually okay with those drugs being on the market. Of course I'd expect the FDA to label them as non safe drugs and require that the packaging says so. If a sound minded adult wants to take those drugs for some reason I don't see why the government would stop them. I suspect you wouldn't be able to get those drugs anyway because the drug makers would probably stop making the product anyway once it got a warning label.


EXACTLY!

They could do that for ALL drugs! And require a sign off at the pharmacy stating that you understand that the drug COULD kill you!

Perfect!

Good argument from both sides. Not sure where exactly I sit. I definitely agree that what we are doing now isn't working, and simply saying "we'll get tougher" won't work either.

I've been thinking though. To those who advocate legalising drugs but with 'restrictions', do you not think that as soon as you put the 'restrictions' on the use, people will feel the need to break them? I mean a junky isn't going to be happy with these restrictions. He might not want to shoot up in the safe house provided. He might prefer to do it in the comfort of his own home or in his car. Saying "legalise but with restrictions" is like saying "we'll get tougher". Seems half ar$ed to me. We've got injecting rooms down under here and they certainly don't keep users off the streets or from stealing from the local 7-11.

Are police in your country actually trying to "hunt down every guy with a pot plant in his apartment, and every idiot smoking crack in the comfort of their own home"? Ot is that an exageration? If not then no wonder the drug war is being lost. That is senseless.

Obviously not, some people just decide what they would like to see and don't open their eyes to what's really going on.

Are police in your country actually trying to "hunt down every guy with a pot plant in his apartment, and every idiot smoking crack in the comfort of their own home"? Ot is that an exageration? If not then no wonder the drug war is being lost. That is senseless.

I think the overall intent is to go after the "big boys"; the people bringing 300lbs of heroin into the country, for example. But local cops aren't the ones looking for those guys - that's the gubment.

The local police bust people for drugs all the time. It might be during a traffic stop, or during a noise complaint, or a domestic disturbance. If a local cop sees a bong on your living room table while he's telling you to turn your music down, and then he ends up finding a few grams of coke in your sock drawer, it's off to jail for you.

So in a way it's exaggerated, but in a way it's not. You still hear of cases (like the one I posted earlier, Reason Magazine - Hit & Run > Tracy Ingle: Another Drug War Outrage (http://reason.com/blog/show/126284.html?redux)) where the gubment officials go a little kooky, but there aren't DEA officials busting doors down of home-smokers on a regular basis.

For me, I'm all for legalization, with the reservation that there's no street intoxication test for heroin, coke, pot, etc. I know, I know, there's no street test for prescription drugs, but at least those are prescribed and not OTC. I just don't like the idea of someone all hopped up on meth driving down the highway next to me and there's no way to prove he's intoxicated.

Nope, there's no way to prove it.

But... you can be brought in for a drug test if you fail the sobriety tests, as far as I know. You can certainly get a lawyer and fight it, but most people aren't going to do that.

Frankly, the kids texting while they drive scare me more than the possibility of a meth-head driving.

And yes, it was an exaggeration--but seriously, look at it this way: If you went home at night, had a couple beers while watching the game, and went to bed, and got up for work in the morning, that's not that bad, right? I mean, unless you show up visibly drunk, you're not going to lose your JOB over it.

You CAN lose your job over recreational use of drugs. Okay, I get that you shouldn't do that on the job--but I can tell you that the entire McDonald's kitchen I worked at in college was high as a kite every flippin' day at work. Frankly, a little pot makes a bad job go over a little better, not that I condone it in the least. But... unless you are in the military, in a high security position, or working with machinery that could hurt someone else (or the company, financially), random drug tests are a crock of crap. A temp, working in an office, filing papers, shouldn't be randomly tested for drugs. What the heck are they going to do? Misfile? HOLY GOD, NO! Not misfiling! (for reference here--stupid people do more damage to filing than high people ever have. I have seriously worked with people that don't know their alphabet without singing it who are filing). And I don't know many professional people that would bring drug use to the office, any more than they'd drink in the office. But where's the harm in toking up the night before while watching the game? You're sober in the morning for work---yet you can lose your job because of what you do on your OWN time, and you're doing something that isn't hurting anyone.

/shrug

I know that too many of our generation have been indoctrinated into the "unless it comes from your doctor it's BAD" idea about drugs. And honestly--I don't know if we'll ever see legalization of drugs. Too many people are making money off it for them to shut down the narcotics section of every other police station in the country, not to mention the drug testing companies, the pharmaceutical companies, the companies making money off things like nylon rope (because hemp rope is now MORE expensive than nylon rope), and the liquor companies who may or may not lose a section of their customer base. And really--anyone pushing for legalization is liable to be arrested, tested, and sentenced. There just isn't a powerful lobbying group out there (aside from NORML) for the legalization of drugs.

What it will come down to, in the end, is someone showing they can make more money in tax dollars for the government while keeping a fairly tight control on the drugs themselves. And open-minded people in Congress. The Moral Majority has got this country by the balls, if only in the fact that anything "immoral" might lose someone votes, and god forbid THAT happen.

I just don't like the idea of someone all hopped up on meth driving down the highway next to me
Whether he gets tested or not, whether the substance is legal or not, he is still driving down the highway next to you, on his dope.

The Moral Majority has got this country by the balls
And they can afford lawyers to keep their kids out of jail.

Nope, there's no way to prove it.

But...you can be brought in for a drug test if you fail the sobriety tests, as far as I know. You can certainly get a lawyer and fight it, but most people aren't going to do that.

Frankly, the kids texting while they drive scare me more than the possibility of a meth-head driving.

You can be brought in for a drug test, but the test doesn't say if you are high at that point in time, only if you've ingested the drug. If the drugs are legal, it's no problem to fail the drug test. And field sobriety tests are subjective, and it leaves it up to the officer's discretion. I don't like that idea, lol! :)

Texting and doing god knows what else while driving are also bad, I'm just saying if drugs were legalized, one would think it would still be illegal to drive under the influence. How do you know if someone is under the influence? With the drugs we are speaking of, you can't know. That's my barrier to making these drugs available OTC. Medical use that you can only get with a prescription? I can go with that. And yes, I know, there's a black market, people will trick the doctor, I know. But at least it's a bit harder to get and more controlled than walking in CVS and picking up a doobie with your Moon Pie.

Hello again:

Here's another consideration... What if people, who are high on drugs, can drive just fine?

Have you ever heard of an accident caused by someone being high on pot?? I haven't. Yes, with 25 million pot smokers in this country, I know a lot of them drive while smoking a joint. In my view, they're perfectly capable of doing so.

No, I don't have a death wish. No, I won't ride with anybody who has been drinking, and I don't drink and drive myself.

There are some drugs that make you "drunk". Nobody can drive when they're drunk. But, other drugs just make you high. Being "high" isn't the same as "drunk". Being high on pot ISN'T drunk. Being high on meth ISN'T drunk, Being high on LSD ISN'T drunk.

Some things to think about...

excon

Being high on LSD isn't like being drunk, but it still impairs your abilities. A lot depends on how much you've taken and when you've taken it, but if you're at the peak where everything has trails and lines are wobbly and you're seeing things out of the corner of your eye that aren't really there, you're a danger on the road. Ten minutes after you take it? When you're coming down hours later? You're probably no more dangerous at that point than anyone else. I've encountered some people so stoned on pot they can't negotiate walking down the hall, much less drive a car. Will one bong hit, one bump of coke, one bump of meth impair you to the point you can't drive? Probably not for most people, but again, there's no way to know how many bumps and how many hits someone took.

It's like driving after drinking, there's a legal limit because that leaves you in the "safe" zone. Beyond that and you're no longer "safe" (we could get into how silly those laws are, and how low the limits are in some states, but that's not really the topic... ). So maybe one joint is "safe" but two joints is "unsafe". How do you know how many someone had? And if you involve puff puff give you need to start doing math... and well... I don't think stoners and math work well! :)

No... but great spaghetti monster, excon--high on LSD while driving is as bad as texting while driving!

But I agree with you--some drugs simply do not affect people the same way as alcohol does. I mean--it's legal to drive after taking cold medicine!

And honestly--technology follows need. If drugs were legal, someone would have a test for field sobriety that was accurate for them, if for no other reason than that there would be money in it.

Besides--I thought if you failed a pee test, it was because the drug was ingested in the last x hours--though I don't know how long that would be. I know right now they're able to test the AMOUNT in your system and determine how long ago the drug was introduced--why wouldn't THAT work for a test back at the station? Granted, it would suck to be taken in and given a drug test because you were just tired --but if you're tired enough to fail a field sobriety test, well, you're really too tired to drive anyway.

I'm not trying to argue here--honestly at this point it's a discussion I'm interested in, and if I'm wrong about something, well, correct me!

Have you ever heard of an accident caused by someone being high on pot??

Yes I have

No...but great spaghetti monster, excon--high on LSD while driving is as bad as texting while driving!

But I agree with you--some drugs simply do not affect people the same way as alcohol does. I mean--it's legal to drive after taking cold medicine!

And honestly--technology follows need. If drugs were legal, someone would have a test for field sobriety that was accurate for them, if for no other reason than that there would be money in it.

Besides--I thought if you failed a pee test, it was because the drug was ingested in the last x hours--though I don't know how long that would be. I know right now they're able to test the AMOUNT in your system and determine how long ago the drug was introduced--why wouldn't THAT work for a test back at the station? Granted, it would suck to be taken in and given a drug test because you were just tired --but if you're tired enough to fail a field sobriety test, well, you're really too tired to drive anyway.

I'm not trying to argue here--honestly at this point it's a discussion I'm interested in, and if I'm wrong about something, well, correct me!

Technology does follow need, you're right there. I know with the pee tests it detects how much of the drug is in your system, but some drugs can stay there longer than others. It would be silly to say you can't drive a car for three days after smoking pot because you'll have trace levels in your body, you know? The problem with being hauled in for being tired and suspected of being high is that when you leave things up to the officers, people get harassed and targeted. Already we see a disproportionate number of minorities being pulled over for traffic violations; imagine giving the police the power to temporarily impound the person's car because the guy's eyes are red. I can just see the abuse of allowing that sort of power.

And I know you're not trying to argue! :)

Hello again,

Ok, should the drug war continue because we can't tell who is high?? Uhhhh, NO.

If we could, would that end it?? No.

excon

Alcohol is the nations legal drug of choice, and one of the most dangerous substances for a human to ingest-LEGAL.
Why should I be going to jail for a few lines, when that drunk just totaled a few cars??

Come on, excon... you know I'm not saying that!

I think the war is severely misguided, and I don't think if there was a breath test for each illegal drug to test your intoxication level it would be over. BUT, it might help. MIGHT.

I'm just saying MY resistance to making all drugs legal and OTC is the fact they can't be tested for the same way alcohol can be. I think decriminalization, especially of small amounts is called for, but it will never happen. Remember, if you're pro-legalization you're a degenerate and you hate kids. At least that's what the gubment would have us think...

Nope, there's no way to prove it.

But...you can be brought in for a drug test if you fail the sobriety tests, as far as I know. You can certainly get a lawyer and fight it, but most people aren't going to do that.

Frankly, the kids texting while they drive scare me more than the possibility of a meth-head driving.

And yes, it was an exaggeration--but seriously, look at it this way: If you went home at night, had a couple beers while watching the game, and went to bed, and got up for work in the morning, that's not that bad, right? I mean, unless you show up visibly drunk, you're not going to lose your JOB over it.

You CAN lose your job over recreational use of drugs. Okay, I get that you shouldn't do that on the job--but I can tell you that the entire McDonald's kitchen I worked at in college was high as a kite every flippin' day at work. Frankly, a little pot makes a bad job go over a little better, not that I condone it in the least. But...unless you are in the military, in a high security position, or working with machinery that could hurt someone else (or the company, financially), random drug tests are a crock of crap. A temp, working in an office, filing papers, shouldn't be randomly tested for drugs. what the heck are they gonna do? Misfile? HOLY GOD, NO! Not misfiling! (for reference here--stupid people do more damage to filing than high people ever have. I have seriously worked with people that don't know their alphabet without singing it who are filing). And I don't know many professional people that would bring drug use to the office, any more than they'd drink in the office. But where's the harm in toking up the night before while watching the game? You're sober in the morning for work---yet you can lose your job because of what you do on your OWN time, and you're doing something that isn't hurting anyone.

/shrug

I know that too many of our generation have been indoctrinated into the "unless it comes from your doctor it's BAD" idea about drugs. And honestly--I don't know if we'll ever see legalization of drugs. Too many people are making money off of it for them to shut down the narcotics section of every other police station in the country, not to mention the drug testing companies, the pharmaceutical companies, the companies making money off of things like nylon rope (because hemp rope is now MORE expensive than nylon rope), and the liquor companies who may or may not lose a section of their customer base. And really--anyone pushing for legalization is liable to be arrested, tested, and sentenced. There just isn't a powerful lobbying group out there (aside from NORML) for the legalization of drugs.

What it will come down to, in the end, is someone showing they can make more money in tax dollars for the government while keeping a fairly tight control on the drugs themselves. And open-minded people in Congress. The Moral Majority has got this country by the balls, if only in the fact that anything "immoral" might lose someone votes, and god forbid THAT happen.




FR Notice - CPG for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers (http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:qJiKUS-SIzIJ:www.oig.hhs.gov/authorities/docs/03/050503FRCPGPharmac.pdf+%22OIG+Compliance+Program+G uidance+for+Pharmaceutical+Manufacturers.%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)



If you are wondering about the relationship between doctors and drug companies -
Again - laws and regulations on the books.


Now it might not be a big deal for the local McDonald worker to be high, but how about your surgeon, or airline pilot, or otr truck driver, school bus driver, teacher, train conductor...


Sure legalize everything,. it is not a "moral" issue, but a practical common sense issue. Legal or not these drugs have ADDICTIVE potential and HEALTH consequences.

There are 10 drugs that were legal that have been pulled from the market in the last decade .
Rezulin: Given fast-track approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Rezulin was linked to 63 confirmed deaths and probably hundreds more. "We have real trouble," a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) physician wrote in 1997, just a few months after Rezulin's approval. The drug wasn't taken off the market until 2000.

Lotronex: Against concerns of one of its own officers, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Lotronex in February 2000. By the time it was withdrawn 9 months later, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had received reports of 93 hospitalizations, multiple emergency bowel surgeries, and 5 deaths.

Propulsid: A top-selling drug for many years, this drug was linked to hundreds of cases of heart arrhythmias and over 100 deaths.

Redux: Taken by millions of people for weight loss after its approval in April 1996, Redux was soon linked to heart valve damage and a disabling, often lethal pulmonary disorder. Taken off the market in September 1997.

Pondimin: A component of Fen-Phen, the diet fad drug. Approved in 1973, Pondimin's link to heart valve damage and a lethal pulmonary disorder wasn't recognized until shortly before its withdrawal in 1997.

Duract: This painkiller was taken off the market when it was linked to severe, sometimes fatal liver failure.

Seldane: America's and the world's top-selling antihistamine for a decade, it took the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 5 years to recognize that Seldane was causing cardiac arrhythmias, blackouts, hospitalizations, and deaths, and another 8 years to take it off the market.

Hismanal: Approved in 1988 and soon known to cause cardiac arrhythmias, the drug was finally taken off the market in 1999.

Posicor: Used to treat hypertension, the drug was linked to life-threatening drug interactions and more than 100 deaths.

Raxar: Linked to cardiac toxicities and deaths.

Others like ephed as you note are restricted because the drugs were being abused . By the logic that is being proposed here there is no drug that should not be available to the consumer. Should the 10 items above be permitted back into the market ?



Here is another

Vioxx


eMJA: Cardiovascular safety of rofecoxib (Vioxx): lessons learned and unanswered questions (http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/181_10_151104/lan10728_fm.html)

"the increased risk of 16 events per 1000 patients treated for up to 3 years "
I wonder if cocaine, heroin, meth, are "safer"

The ironic thing is that the drug co , Merck, was doing a study to see if this medicine could help reduce the liklihood that colon polyps would turn into colon cancer. The damning data and evidence is from their own study, at the drug co's cost.



Notice that in the list Tom provided the major risk is heart related.

Lets go legalize cocaine, meth, ectasy, ice etc... - they all have cardiac side effects.

So legalize ADDICTIVE drugs with no medical purpose and with much greater cardiac risks, and take off the market legetimate medicines with a medical purpose,. and sue the drug co too.

Every single drug out there has addictive potential and health consequences.

Name me one single narcotic that doesn't.

What I'm saying is that I'm sick of spending money to "fight" the war on drugs. Just legalize it, let the real idiots kill themselves off in the first year or so, and let the sensible people make their OWN decisions about what to introduce to their bodies.

Slap a warning label on it.

Let companies have their own policies on it--As in, those jobs where being on ANY drug (including NyQuil, for god's sake--that stuff messes me up more than pot EVER did) could be hazardous to another person's health, it's not allowed. I mean, we have the right to bear arms in this country, yet private property is private property--and I have yet to see very many public places where firearms are not banned, and plenty of private companies have those signs up as well. It's not ILLEGAL to have a gun--just controlled, regulated, and stipulated as to WHERE you can have said firearm. Heck, almost everyone I know owns a gun. Does that mean, since guns have NO health benefits, and are dangerous, that THEY should be banned too?

Look, I'm honestly trying to see your side of things, but to me what it looks like is that the rich doctors, surgeons, rock stars, politicians, whatever can do these illegal drugs. Heck, physicians often write each OTHER scrips for drugs that could be addictive and have health consequences--and not just to the doctor, but to the patients he/she is seeing that day!

So what it sounds like to me that you're saying (and it's not that I'm being stubborn here--this is honestly what I'm hearing) is that it's okay to do drugs IF you have a connection, and IF you don't get caught, and IF you DO get caught, well, it's only the dumb ones that get caught anyway. I mean, do you honestly think that all of the surgeons, or airline pilots, or otr truck drivers, school bus drivers, teachers, train conductors, etc are SOBER 100% of the time? Hell, every otr driver I ever knew had weed--it was the best source for GETTING it. You hear about surgeons and doctors on the news who are caught addicted to prescription drugs. Every teacher I know (and I work in a college) drinks, even if it's only occasionally. I don't know any school bus drivers or train conductors or airline pilots--but I'm betting that a good portion of that population uses mood altering intoxicants at some point or another--even if it's only alcohol!

Most people won't lose their job over a drunk driving incident--unless their job is driving, of course. I can't think of very many jobs where a drug possession charge wouldn't have you packing up your desk, though.

If you fight a war on drugs and after 50 or so years there is more dope, and not less, and even more people to put in jail, shouldn't you change SOMETHING, or just keep doing what you know is ineffective?

Not all legal drugs are addictive:

- for example, do you know any chemotherapy addicts? Fosamax addicts? etc...


There is a difference between ADDICTION [ maladaptive behavior ] physical dependence [ e.g... alcohol or valium ] and prescribed use.


The gun analogy is false because that is a 2nd Amendement issue.

Chemotherapy isn't exactly a narcotic. And it's extremely damaging to your body and it's really just poisoning your body in hopes of killing the cancer--instead of just poisoning your lungs, or your liver, or whatever.

So you're saying that the ONLY argument in favor of guns is that it's a second amendment right? So... if you're going to argue the Constitution as to reasons something is valid--well, the Constitution is the ONLY thing that grants the Federal Government any rights. If it is NOT specifically in the Constitution, it is reserved for the STATE to decide whether it is allowed. Therefore, a FEDERAL law prohibiting drugs is actually un-Constitutional. And therefore, the WAR on Drugs is un-constitutional.

Really... your whole argument is that drugs are dangerous and unhealthy. Well--DUH.

But... who the heck are you (or who the heck is our government) to say what I can and can not do that is dangerous only to ME. If I am in a controlled situation (as in, imbibing in my own home, on my own time), who am I hurting? And if it's just the danger and unhealthy thing, then you should be pushing for alcohol and cigarettes to ALSO be illegal by the SAME standards as you hold other drugs.

We all know what happen to the alcohol, during prohibition. Since we learned nothing, the very same thing is happening all over again. This time we have built more jails fill them up, and build more.

Hello everyone -

Just some more thoughts.

Before you are willing to open the flood gates of drugs, think of others. Visit a rehab and see the beautiful humans struggling hour by hour just to remain sober. See how the drugs have detiorated their hearts, minds and bodies.

Visit with the families, whose loved ones have mistakenly overdosed trying to regain that first feeling of being high.

Some say they have a right to do it in their home and no one is harmed and they can handle the ill effects. I am in awe of that and these people then need to reach out to others and help them to be able to do drugs, stay in their homes, not effect others and not to have their lives destroyed.

Perhaps pot you are able to keep it in the confides of your home but with some of these other drugs, the effects hurt everyone around them. Neighbors afriad to let their children go out and play, because their neighbor is so off the wall high on drugs.

People have a right to live free of the worry of what will happen to them at the hands of someone high on drugs.

If you are so strong and responsible and able to maintain a normal life and believe it is your right to do whatever drug you wish to, then be sure it doesn't effect anyone else. And if you have that much control over these powerful drugs, then you need to jump in and share how you are able to accomplish this with those who suffer daily.

May we never be so focused on what is our rights, that it overshadows what devasting effects it can have on others.

No, what we are doing now may not be working 100%, but to go the complete opposite way is not the answer either.

Allheart--

Alcohol destroys the lives of people around them daily. People who drive under the influence - not even ADDICTS, just IDIOTS who think they're sober enough--and end up killing the innocent around them.

Visit any Al-Anon around you and find out the devastating effects of alcohol. Visit a hospital where someone is dying of liver failure. Visit an Al-a-Teen meeting. Visit a high school where they are mourning the underage driver who was going home from a party and killed himself and 3 of his friends, and the family of 3 in the other car.

Yet ALCOHOL is legal.

Many of the drugs out there are no more addicting than alcohol is. Many of them are used for the same kind of "high" you get from alcohol.

Should I be out preaching to people that they should take personal responsibility for their actions and not DRINK, either? Why is it MY responsibility to teach people that they can just say that they've had enough, or that they're driving, or that they've had too much lately and need to cut back?

Do YOU enjoy a glass of wine after dinner? Are you able to limit yourself to that ONE glass of wine? Yet --some people can't. Some people are hopelessly addicted to alcohol. Should the rest of us lose OUR privileges (not rights--privileges) to have a safe and legal alcoholic drink because a few idiots don't know when to say "enough"?

Same thing with drugs. There are ALWAYS going to be a few people for EVERYTHING that ruin it for the rest. Why should those who CAN control themselves be responsible for those who can't? Do you make it that the smartest person in the class has to teach the dumbest, just because he/she can control himself in the classroom and focus on learning, and not screw off? Or do you promote the smart one and tell the dumb one he has to repeat the grade until he gets it right?

Perhaps those in favor of keeping drugs illegal should visit the jails and talk to all the people who are being deprived of normal lives and seeing their children grow up all because they were arrested for having a paltry (in perspective here) amount of weed on them when they were pulled over for having a taillight out. Or visit the families for whom the head of household is now in jail, and who are struggling to pay the heat AND by groceries. And if you suggest Welfare for those families, I'll smack you. In that situation, as a taxpayer, I'd be paying the support of a drug dealer, all his legal fees, and for his wife and kids to live in a place as nice as mine (part of my building is Section 8 housing), while receiving free food and diapers.

Make it legal, regulate it, and it then becomes harder to get overall. You will ALSO not have drug dealers pushing people to continue trying harder, more expensive, more addictive drugs--you'd have to go to a different dealer for each TYPE of drug, and some drugs would require a prescription. As far as I'm concerned, Valium addiction is JUST as severe as meth addiction, and Valium is legal. Make meth legal, make it by prescription only, and then the only people who end up doing it are the ones already addicted, and their friends.

Drugs are NOT that hard to get. I've been able to find a connection for just about anything within a month of moving to a different state. I honestly, truly, completely think that drugs would be HARDER to get if they were regulated--which means legalized.

Drugs are NOT that hard to get. I've been able to find a connection for just about anything within a month of moving to a different state. I honestly, truly, completely think that drugs would be HARDER to get if they were regulated--which means legalized.

You make a good point here - I've read several articles where teens say it's harder to get alcohol than drugs. Legalize it and regulate it - make it just as hard to get.

Vicodin is a legal drug that is now more readily available on the streets. Now, people are crushing it and snorting it. Great legal regulation. This drug was first put out for people who suffer with serious illnesses such as cancer, and now flows through the streets.

Just last night a documentary stated that over 50% of those arrested for violent crimes, test positive for drugs... meth being a front runner.

No reason to slap someone for having a different opinion.

Yes, I feel strongly about this issue, but feel this discussion is almost mute, as I don't see legalization happening, and it's quite not worth the upset caused.

Allheart, you're right that Vicodin and other prescription drugs are being abused by kids on the streets. A lot of that is caused by parents who don't keep track of their drugs. I have Vicodin left over from when I had my wisdom teeth out, as well as other pain killers right in my medicine cabinet. I don't count them every day, I don't keep them under lock and key. But then, I don't have kids in my house. That's not a problem the drug war can fix, only awareness and responsibility can fix that. You can bet that if I did have kids in my house, those drugs would NOT be laying around in my medicine cabinet! It's also caused by doctors who will sell the drugs on the street, or people who will fake illness to get the drugs to sell on the street. I'd rather see the drug war going to fight against those people than the pot head who smokes on a Friday night. But that's me.

Drugs cause a lot of problems. The violence you mention is one of them. But often times people commit violent crimes in order to GET MORE - if they were legal, I think you might see a reduction in that. Additionally, the drugs being pur out in the legal market wouldn't contain any additives which can cause other undesirable behavior.

It's a sensitive issue, and one nearly everyone has an opinion on. I don' think there is a "right" answer. Personally, I don't think what we are doing now is working and needs to change. Is the answer legalization? Decriminalization? Change in punishments? I don't know. I just know the current plan is costing us a lot of money, and it's not doing much.

For the record, I agree with you - I don't see legalization happening either!

Regarding pot specifically, the problem with "decriminalization" is that since there is no way to own it legally, as a practical matter, it's legal to steal. This leads to violence and vigilante justice.

Alaska has the only sensible pot law in the nation--legal to grow and possess, illegal to transport or sell. If it is legalized for commerce, we'll have the same problems we have with the tobacco industry--vested interests lobbying for advantage and advertising to increase demand. If it's legal to grow your own, but nothing more, it will remain more of a "cottage industry" which is the least objectionable situation.

Okay I just want to throw my small opinion out there...

I think the gov will not legalize pot, cocaine,meth and other drugs for 2 reasons...

~ they give police officers and FBI job security. Without the drug war we wouldn't need half of the cops on the street that we have now which would lower the need for the extra money from the hard working citizens of this fine country.

~ and the gov only wants drugs that manipulate your mind into mush and turn you into a zombie legal. So they can brainwash you and keep you calm and believing that everything is totally okay in this glorious country. Now take a man of large stature on PCP and piss him off. I have seen this with my own eyes and the man took about 8 rounds to the upper body from a swat team and was still throwing them around like babydolls. The gov doesn't want that. Because if they can't bust down a mans house with 50 people in full body armor and bring down that 5'4" 170 lb man by themselves and highfive on the way out the door with the little guy beat all to hell from top to bottom and in full shackles with no shirt or shoes on and his little 45 then... they suck.

So the gov is slowly taking over this country. They have managed to control everysingle thing that we do and yet convince us that we still live in a free country. I can't smack my kid on the butt when he yells F*** you to me. But they beat the hell out of a man the says F*** you to a cop. I can watch porn in my home if I choose to but if I want to sell a book that has a detailed sex scene in it, well the gov wants to make you get an adult book store license and tax your a**. I can't drive my car without a seatbelt on (which only puts myself in danger) but a cop can drive 80 miles an hour to get Krispy Kreme hot out of the oven and leave his flippin car running while he goes in to enjoy it and my tax money puts gas in the damn thing! But you shouldn't let your car idle in the drivethru because it's bad for the ozone.

Okay I'm done.

It is obvious to me that the "drug war" is not working for at least two reasons: first of all there is a large demand for drugs-they are part of being cool, being in with your peers and not to mention the rebellious nature of kids who like to try anything that freaks out their parents.

The second reason is that it is extremely difficult to enforce a law that prohibits the possession of inanimate objects, particularly small objects. Police and other law enforcement agencies can only seize objects from people in very limited circumstances, such as in plain view, search incident to arrest, search warrant, etc.

We have the drug laws on the books because people want them there, if there were enough of a fuss raised by voters, they would be changed, and we see some of that going on now.

Having said all that, it is obvious to me, as others have mentioned, that alcohol causes far more problems for our society than marijuana does. It is also obvious to me that objects should be regulated, if at all, based upon their danger to society, but that is just me.