Alcohol was iliogal in the 1930's in the US, proabition was deemed a bad idear as the trade of alcohol went to the black market and was run by gangsters.

Is drugs being illigal like proabition. Some people decide to take drugs but if they were legal there could be controle over quality.

Or do you think it would be worse for sociatey?

National alcohol prohibition (1920-1933) was far from our first attempt. Beginning in 1851 Maine imposed statewide prohibition and by 1856 13 other states followed. In fact, prohibition can be traced to the Colony of Georgia, 1735-1742.

In each of these instances the result was the same. Where one regulated tavern existed 10 illegal replaced them. Price went up, potency was increased, crime increased, public corruption was prevalent and most importantly supply/availability of the prohibited substance was greatly increased.

The effect of prohibition is well documented in relation to alcohol and illicit drugs. As example the writing of Levine and Reinerman (http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/levine.alcohol.html) is a good starting point. Levine does a good job of describing the inevitable socio-medico-legal consequences that follow.

I believe it is safe to say that the act of prohibiting drugs of all types was ill advised. Unfortunately, it isn't as simple as legalizing, or de-criminalizing at this point.

Substance prohibition is richly documented see also (H. G. Levine, 1978, 1984; Ian Tyrell, 1979; Jos. Gusfield, 1986; Rumbarger 1989; Blocker 1989).

Or do you think it would be worse for sociatey?Hello d:

NOTHING could equal the damage to society that the drug war has caused.

excon

Does this mean you think it should be legal as it cost a lot on the 'war on drugs' which is clearly a losing battle.

Hello d:

NOTHING could equal the damage to society that the drug war has caused.

excon

That is true. The freedoms lost, given up to ill conceived drug-directed statutes, i.e. seizure laws (criminal and civil), no knock searches, etc. These won't be considered as part of drug reform. Possession laws have criminalized a very large segment of society (that didn't exist with alcohol prohibition). That is irreversible.

You can be arrested for having too much money on your person. Then the money can be seized by the arresting agency even if they don't file charges. Your car, or someone else's car you are driving, can be seized for a misdemeanor violation, whether you are convicted. These all emerged from the "war on drugs" and were generalized to apply to other circumstances.

Does this mean you think it should be legal Hello d:

That's EXACTLY what I mean.

excon

Hello excon:

If we LEGALIZED drugs, what kind of message would that send?

excon

If we LEGALIZED drugs, what kind of message would that send?Hello again, excon:

I don't think there IS a message... After all, I don't get a message when I buy safety pins. Do you? I just buy them because I WANT them. I certainly don't believe I can buy them because the government APPROVES.

But, if there IS a message to be had, it would be, that the policy the government pursued over the years was WRONG, and they're FIXING it. Isn't that what we WANT government to do - to FIX problems??

excon

I agree with excon.

I think all drugs should be legal. I think it would be better for society not worse.

We talk about freedom so what's the harm if some one wants to take drugs it doesn't effect any one else, just like it's a choice to drink alcohol or smoke, we know the dangers some choose to do it any way others choose not to. Why can't this be the same for drugs. It would make drug useres not criminals and would save the government money on the redicculas amount they spend on the 'war on drugs' Its very rare they get the people at the top, they just get addicts who need medical help instead of jail.

I'm all for legalizing marijuana, but would it be okay to legalize drugs like Ketamine (http://www.justice.gov/dea/concern/ketamine_factsheet.html) (yes it's being used by the population now), and LSD, how about PCP? Hey, why not GHB while we're at it!

Hey, why not GHB while we're at it!Hello J:

Why not?

Keep in mind, of course, that I'm not talking about DRIVING or operating heavy equipment. I'm not talking about CHILDREN, and I'm not talking about robbing your local 7/Eleven.

I'm talking about adults who want to get high.

excon

Yed I think those drugs should be legal. LSD is not harmful to the body it has less toxic value then alcohol. The effects change your perception while you are on it. But it is not an adictive substance like alohol.

As for ketermin, it does't have any really bad effects, it can be adictive but not phisicaly adictive.

GHB brakes down in the body very quickly and has a very lox toxic value. It's not harmful if you are careful, don't mix it with alcohol that's when it could become dangerous. But if it were legal it could be sold as doses and guide lines to make it safe for the user.

PCP is in the same drug family as ketermine, it lasts much longer and is sronger, but yes if you want to take it it should be your choice and you shouldn't be a criminal for taking them.

Hello d:

NOTHING could equal the damage to society that the drug war has caused.

excon

Nothing could be more true .

In places where it has been legalized the addiction rate and crime rate both drop dramatically .
We could possibly put a large number of "law enforcement" people out of work... which I feel would not be a bad thing.

Ex is absolutely right , correct , spot on, and speaks a great truth.
If he were not a man of honor I'd say elect him president.

Agreed. Lets hope one day that probition of drugs ends and we can look back and see that that it was a great mistake to make them ileagal in the first place. We all know that alcohol is just a drug like any other, people should choose to use or abuse drugs. LSD is much more fun then getting drunk, and I can't see any one wanting to fight on drugs like LSD, MDMA, KETERMIN, WEED.

Why not, I think it is that simple? State why?

Should there be prescriptions or should we eliminate that "prohibition " too ?

should there be prescriptions or should we eliminate that "prohibition " too ?Hello tom:

If prohibition is the problem, and it is, then why keep banging ourselves in the head with a hammer? You certainly don't believe prescription drug prohibition is keeping them out of the hands of their abusers, do you? In fact, I believe they are the most abused drugs these days...

I suspect you believe that's so, because we haven't really CRACKED DOWN yet.

Drug abuse is a health issue - not a legal issue.

excon

Maybe we should make them free also ? On Long Island recently there was a mass murder at a pharmacy so an addict could get her hit of prescription pain killers she abused .

What should we do about OTC ? Ephdrine based products were once widely available until the authorities realized how easy they could be turned into meth in a kitchen lab.

This is one of those questions that makes me ask, where have you been? People have been fighting this fight for as long as I can remember, and I'm 64. Marijuana is slowly but SURELY getting decriminalized or even legalized little by little, and when the tobacco companies and organized crime feel that they are ready to jump their fences, they will stop lining the pockets of the legislators who keep it illegal.

Just one tiny part of the whole equation. Rather than getting sidetracked with different drugs, concentrate on one type of drug at a time. Weed first!

Or do you think it would be worse for sociatey?



5 Years After: Portugal's Drug Decriminalization Policy Shows Positive Results: Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization)

There's a lot of art. Like this.

Sure let's make all drugs (medications are drugs) over-the-counter now. HA HA HA!!

Why not, i think it is that simple? State why?

Drug prohibition is world-wide phenomenon enforced by international treaty(ies). The US cannot act unilaterally to legalize drugs or to lift national prohibition. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs) is the foundation of American drug policy right down to the Scheduling I-IV of drugs. Even that cannot be modified except by petitioning the UN, Narcotics Control Board (INCB), which in turn must obtain an agreement through the World Health Organization (WHO).

In addition, the most potent political forces in the US are opposed not only to legalization but even to de-criminalization: Pharmaceutical industry, American Medical Association, American Bankers Association are but three examples that would be financially devastated by even decriminalization.

Excon notes that drug abuse is a health issue. Indeed it is. But prohibition is and always has been an economic issue. If those two factors bump into one another it is an accidental meeting. No where is that more apparent than in the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act (1937) through the efforts of Harry Anslinger (Dir of FBN) on behalf of the Mellon (banking) family and William Randolph Hurst the publishing magnate. These records are now public and paint a very dark picture of American politics and regulatory practices.

I see that parttime has already provided information on Portugal's decriminalization. That is an example, now 10 years old, that provides the basis for a more realistic approach to Drug Control (your government doesn't like the word prohibition) while working within the boundaries of the UN mandate. Following is another link in relation to Portugal: DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION IN PORTUGAL (http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/13784156)

Sorry I haven't read back but I think marijuana should definitely be legalized.
My mum has a medical condition that marijuana has been proven to help with, pharmaceutical drugs were ineffective in managing both pain and symptoms.
It's not addictive like nicotine and has no lasting side effects, I do more stupid things when I'm drunk than when I'm high so that's not a reason either.

I also haven't really read back, but I agree with Shaz. I think Marijuana should be legalized too. Maybe not leagalized, but just decriminilized. I also agree with the medical treatment. A family member of mine is retired military and his knee's are badly damaged from "jumping out of planes, trains and automobiles" as he puts it. He says the only relief he gets is when he smoked a joint.

I also feel that if there were the same restrictions as alcohol (no driving under the influence etc... ), then there would be nothing wrong or more harmful then say smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol. I never hear about a high domestic dispute... etc.

On June 21, 2011 the DEA issued a ruling refusing to reclassify marijuana to a less restrictive category, stating that it has no medical use. See DEA ruling (http://www.ofr.gov/(S(ztclq22gsjl5u42mfotcq3cv))/OFRUpload/OFRData/2011-16994_PI.pdf).

You should take great pride and confidence in the fact that these are the folks regulating the drugs you take, supervising the pharmaceutical industry, looking out for your benefit.

The drug my mum was on she had to go in every 8 weeks and be re-evaluated by the government to see if it is 'worth' giving to her because it's so expensive.
If she only improved a little bit, or had a bad month then they would cut her off.

Yeah, they're really looking out for us.

Long story short, she had to go off the drug anyway as it causes infections.
Now she is on a new drug that causes migraines, suicidal tendencies, hallucinations, mood swings... how is that better than a whiff of Mary Jane?

Now she is on a new drug that causes migraines, suicidal tendencies, hallucinations, mood swings... how is that better than a whiff of Mary Jane?

I sometimes forget that in brief written comments in this format can be interpreted literally... my final comment was entirely ironic.

The banishment of cannabis in 1937 was entirely economic, a political act to further private financial interests. It remains so to this day. Unfortunately, at this point, the US government now has an enormous financial interest in maintaining the façade. That is apparent in the recent ruling.

Perhaps a case can be made for weed. But the op and some other commenters have floated the idea of a blanket end to the ban on all illegal ,and if I read it correctly, deregulation of controlled substances ;including prescriptions.

if I read it correctly, deregulation of controlled substances ;including prescriptions.Hello again, tom:

IF the PURPOSE of the law is to KEEP these drugs out of the hands of abusers, then it isn't working... If you can come up with ANOTHER solution, OTHER than doubling down on what doesn't work, HASN'T worked, and doesn't look like it ever WILL work, I'll be happy to consider it.

excon

I sometimes forget that in brief written comments in this format can be interpreted literally.....my final comment was entirely ironic.

The banishment of cannabis in 1937 was entirely economic, a political act to further private financial interests. It remains so to this day. Unfortunately, at this point, the US government now has an enormous financial interest in maintaining the facade. That is apparent in the recent ruling.

Got to love the internet for that, sorry I took it the wrong way.
In terms of harder, more damaging drugs I don't think lifting a ban will help, if anything it will make it worse.
How many kids think about taking drugs just to "see what it's like"? And how many get hooked and continue to take it?
Not to mention accessibility, how would the new legalized heroin be distributed? Just pop down to your local pharmacy for a gram or two?

I think all drugs should be legal. When I was a kid I smoked pot before I ever sipped alcohol and the reason for this. Drug Dealers don't care how old you are they will sell it to anyone. Now if it was legal I wouldn't have been able to get it in home room at my high school.

How many kids think about taking drugs just to "see what it's like"? And how many get hooked and continue to take it? Not to mention accessibility, how would the new legalized heroin be distributed? Just pop down to your local pharmacy for a gram or two?Hello shaz:

You bring up two excellent points. I think I can handle them with ONE argument... There's NO disagreement about kids and drugs and the damage addiction causes. You're right too, accessibility IS the problem...

However, the drug laws haven't reduced availability. Kids know where to get it.. It's EASY. At the VERY least, popping down to the local pharmacy, as you put it, will at LEAST require the production of an ID saying the user is 21. Will kids cheat?? Of course, they will.. But, at least there's a LAYER between your kids and dangerous drugs, where there isn't one now...

Let me also tell you about WHY kids think that dangerous drugs aren't really that dangerous... Clearly, they SEE that the government is LYING about the dangers of marijuana, so they're probably LYING about the dangers of heroine too... Isn't there a story about that? Something about a wolf??

Let me also mention that along with legalization we should provide treatment ON DEMAND for drug addiction... Today, even IF an addict wanted to get off drugs, there's no place for him to go.

Finally, if drugs are legalized, the manufacture can be regulated where there won't be any ugly stuff in the drugs people take... And I suppose I should mention that clean needles would be available, and that's got to cut down on aids and hepatitis..

Sorry. I guess I used more than one argument...

excon

I think we as a society focus too much on how illegal these drugs are (the illegal ones, that is) and on making sure those who use drugs illegally and especially those who use illegal drugs get punished.

Drug abuse is dangerous and people die from the effects of drugs all the time. Compound that with people who die from the effects of this drug war (I'm thinking of the 15 year old girl in Juarez who was shot in the head on her quinceañera, as collateral damage, during a fire-fight over drugs).

I feel that arresting drug users is only treating a symptom of the problem. I think that we're uneducated as to the effects of drugs and people who are suffering from addictions have little resources.

Decriminalizing drug use and abuse is a good step. Educating ourselves on what an addiction (OF ANY KIND) looks like and how to help our loved ones suffering from an addiction is another good step. I agree with ex that if a working adult wants to get high... whatever. Let their punishment be social, not costly imprisonment.

Take the power away from the black market and cartels. Legalizing and regulating weed is a great idea. It has medical benefits, it's far less dangerous than alcohol, and it's a huge source of revenue for gangsters when it's illegal.

I don't have ideas for how to take cocaine, meth, heroin, et al, away from gangsters... but I would love to see it happen.

Hello shaz:

You bring up two excellent points. I think I can handle them with ONE argument... There's NO disagreement about kids and drugs and the damage addiction causes. You're right too, accessibility IS the problem...

However, the drug laws haven't reduced availability. Kids know where to get it.. It's EASY. At the VERY least, popping down to the local pharmacy, as you put it, will at LEAST require the production of an ID saying the user is 21. Will kids cheat??? Of course, they will.. But, at least there's a LAYER between your kids and dangerous drugs, where there isn't one now...

Lemme also tell you about WHY kids think that dangerous drugs aren't really that dangerous... Clearly, they SEE that the government is LYING about the dangers of marijuana, so they're probably LYING about the dangers of heroine too.... Isn't there a story about that?? Something about a wolf???

Let me also mention that along with legalization we should provide treatment ON DEMAND for drug addiction... Today, even IF an addict wanted to get off drugs, there's no place for him to go.

Finally, if drugs are legalized, the manufacture can be regulated where there won't be any ugly stuff in the drugs people take.... And I suppose I should mention that clean needles would be available, and that's got to cut down on aids and hepatitis..

Sorry. I guess I used more than one argument...

excon

Greenie for you. Great post.

Hello shaz:

You bring up two excellent points. I think I can handle them with ONE argument... There's NO disagreement about kids and drugs and the damage addiction causes. You're right too, accessibility IS the problem...

However, the drug laws haven't reduced availability. Kids know where to get it.. It's EASY. At the VERY least, popping down to the local pharmacy, as you put it, will at LEAST require the production of an ID saying the user is 21. Will kids cheat??? Of course, they will.. But, at least there's a LAYER between your kids and dangerous drugs, where there isn't one now...

Lemme also tell you about WHY kids think that dangerous drugs aren't really that dangerous... Clearly, they SEE that the government is LYING about the dangers of marijuana, so they're probably LYING about the dangers of heroine too.... Isn't there a story about that?? Something about a wolf???

Let me also mention that along with legalization we should provide treatment ON DEMAND for drug addiction... Today, even IF an addict wanted to get off drugs, there's no place for him to go.

Finally, if drugs are legalized, the manufacture can be regulated where there won't be any ugly stuff in the drugs people take.... And I suppose I should mention that clean needles would be available, and that's got to cut down on aids and hepatitis..

Sorry. I guess I used more than one argument...

excon

Ex... bravo! You made every argument I did (and more), only before I was able to and much more effectively.

We need to stop lying about drugs to ourselves and especially our kids. It's obviously doing no one any good.

I agree! I think legalizing them and having some sort of control over distribution and age is where the problem could be fixed. Kind of like the prostitution in Amsterdam. It's just way too accessible for kids to get their hands on these drugs.

I also don't compare pot heads to crack heads, it's like comparing apples to oranges. When I volunteered at an addictions foundation program there were horror stories of crack or meth users robbing their grandparents and other family members for the drugs, they would kill to get the money to buy this stuff, and then there were the few pot heads who were caught with a gram or two smoking behind the local 7-11 (only because it was convenient to get their munchies and DVD's in one stop) and were on their way home, and caught and forced to do an addictions program. Or how about some of the American laws like the 3 strike policy where a person gets caught with marijuana and is stuck doing a life sentence, when there are mother killing their daughters and walking free.

Whether it's legal or not, drugs will not go away. Why not legalize and have more control over it?

You made every argument I did (and more), only before I was able to and much more effectively.Hello again, sa:

Nahhh... We had a simultaneous conclusion... Got a cigarette?

excon

Hello again:

I've got one more argument, then I'll shut up..

Some say there's LOTS of people, who are chomping at the bit, but WAITING on the sidelines for drugs to become legal...

Do YOU know anybody like that? I don't. Everybody I know who WANTS to use drugs, is using drugs.

That's not to say that there won't be a few people who will try drugs for the first time... However, IF we provide treatment on demand, I believe there will be MORE people getting OFF drugs than are getting ON. Yes, addiction IS as bad as we think it is.

excon

Hello again, sa:

Nahhh... We had a simultaneous conclusion... Got a cigarette?

excon
Hahaha. It was certainly a pleasure.

Very good points Exy, you've made me think.

I don't think it's easily accessible where I live, but I only live in a relatively small town. And that's not to say it doesn't exist here, but if I wanted to try something, I would have a helluva time finding it.

Hello shaz:

You bring up two excellent points. I think I can handle them with ONE argument... There's NO disagreement about kids and drugs and the damage addiction causes. You're right too, accessibility IS the problem...

However, the drug laws haven't reduced availability. Kids know where to get it.. It's EASY. At the VERY least, popping down to the local pharmacy, as you put it, will at LEAST require the production of an ID saying the user is 21. Will kids cheat??? Of course, they will.. But, at least there's a LAYER between your kids and dangerous drugs, where there isn't one now...

Lemme also tell you about WHY kids think that dangerous drugs aren't really that dangerous... Clearly, they SEE that the government is LYING about the dangers of marijuana, so they're probably LYING about the dangers of heroine too.... Isn't there a story about that?? Something about a wolf???

Let me also mention that along with legalization we should provide treatment ON DEMAND for drug addiction... Today, even IF an addict wanted to get off drugs, there's no place for him to go.

Finally, if drugs are legalized, the manufacture can be regulated where there won't be any ugly stuff in the drugs people take.... And I suppose I should mention that clean needles would be available, and that's got to cut down on aids and hepatitis..

Sorry. I guess I used more than one argument...

excon
Excellent . Extremely well done.

Hello again:

I've got one more argument, then I'll shut up..

Some say there's LOTS of people, who are chomping at the bit, but WAITING on the sidelines for drugs to become legal....

Do YOU know anybody like that? I don't. Everybody I know who WANTS to use drugs, is using drugs.

That's not to say that there won't be a few people who will try drugs for the first time... However, IF we provide treatment on demand, I believe there will be MORE people getting OFF drugs than are getting ON. Yes, addiction IS as bad as we think it is.

excon

Don't be shutin' up. You're doing great.

Exy, while I do agree with the points you are making, what about the street users? Legalizing drugs isn't going to stop people from using dangerously and buying off the street. Especially kids. Just like illegal cigarettes, not sure if you guys are having a "problem" with that in the U.S but there have been more arrests in the past few months for illegal cigarettes. People still buy them on the street because they are cheaper. The government is saying these ciggy's are dangerous, but everyone here knows one ciggy can't be more dangerous than another, and it's only because the government is losing so much money of smokes that this harsh ban and penalty came into effect. People buy the smokes 200 for $20, and fine of $20 per smoke.

Legalizing drugs isn't going to stop people from using dangerously and buying off the street.Hello again, Bella:

Take the profit out of it, and street dealers will disappear.

excon

Exy,

But just like illegal cigarettes, there will be profit to be made, just like boot legging.

Hello again, Bella:

Take the profit out of it, and street dealers will disappear.

excon

Nah, there will still be street dealers to deal to the tikes who are considered underage.

Lemme also tell you about WHY kids think that dangerous drugs aren't really that dangerous... Clearly, they SEE that the government is LYING about the dangers of marijuana, so they're probably LYING about the dangers of heroine too.... Isn't there a story about that?? Something about a wolf???

Exy, how many teens do you personally know who are on drugs? Let me tell you from experience that the teens don't care about the government, the ones on drugs don't even really KNOW about the government.

They are taking drugs to replace something missing in their lives, they are taking drugs to gain acceptance into a culture that promises them "love" and "acceptance." It has NOTHING to do with the government.

It has NOTHING to do with the government.Hello again, J:

Oh, not so, my friend...

Kids know pot is illegal. They know the government is behind that. They know pot SHOULDN'T be illegal because it does NOTHING bad. They SURMISE, that since heroine is also illegal, maybe there's nothing wrong it either.

It has EVERYTHING to do with the government...

excon

Hello again, J:

Oh, not so, my friend...

Kids know pot is illegal. They know the government is behind that. They know pot SHOULDN'T be illegal because it does NOTHING bad. They SURMISE, that since heroine is also illegal, maybe there's nothing wrong it either.

It has EVERYTHING to do with the government...

excon

WRONG! Sorry, that's the democrat in you talking. I'm not talking about either democrat or republican, but from the TEEN point of view. Remember, I not only have teens at home, but deal with drug addicted teens on a nightly basis.

It's sad really. Teens use drugs because there is something missing at home. It's a peer pressure sort of thing. If they use drugs, they are accepted by a certain percentage of their peers. They gain love and respect, if you want to call it that, by these "friends" of theirs. Love and respect are something that they feel is missing at home, from their parents and other family figures.

Look at gangs for example. Kids join gangs to gain love and acceptance, they call it a "family" because they are missing something at home.

Let me ask you how many teens you know, personally, who are on drugs. I gave drug tests to 10 women last night and had to have an indepth "interview" on why they used drugs. Not ONE of them told me it had to do with the government. They all told me that it was because "he would love me if I smoke the crack with him." or "I needed a way to escape from the demands of my parents." etc.

They gain love and respect, if you want to call it that, by these "friends" of theirs. Love and respect are something that they feel is missing at home, from their parents and other family figures.Hello again, J:

So, let's lock them up. Maybe they'll find respect and family figures in the slam..

excon

Ex, have you ever been spit upon, bit, kicked and attacked in the ER by someone on PCP? I have.

Have you ever had to intubate a baby weighing less than 3 pounds addicted to crack who later died? I have.

While I see your point, I believe that only CERTAIN drugs should be legalized. Mary Jane and possibly Shrooms. But to say that ALL drugs should be legalized is a very slippery slope.

You are looking at it from the legal standpoint, which you know legalities very well. I am looking at it from the medical standpoint, which I know very well.

You are looking at it from the legal standpoint, which you know legalities very well. I am looking at it from the medical standpoint, which I know very well.Hello again, J:

We DON'T disagree. Drug abuse is a HEALTH problem - NOT a legal one. In MY view, legalization will REDUCE the incidents you refer to - NOT increase them. To believe that it would INCREASE them, you'd have to believe that the drug war is WORKING, in that it keeps dangerous drugs OUT of the hands of children...

I don't believe that, and I don't believe you do either... I think you SUPPORT the drugwar because you don't know of ANY other solution - and legalization DOESN'T sound like a solution... Upon first glance it doesn't sound like it to me either, but, it IS.

excon

PS> Yes, when I came home from Vietnam, I experienced spittle in the face...

We need to ADDRESS drug problems. I think everyone can agree with that. Drug addicts are dangerous not only to themselves but to those around them. This is where I think education would be good, but honest education. Not telling kids that their baby will die or they will miss a tea party with grandma because they smoked pot. That's pretty darn easy to see through... it was for me.

My issue is the countless cases of over-zealous SWAT teams or police raids that ended up the death of innocent people, and fire-fights between cartel gangs in central America that have killed countless innocents as collateral damage. The death of completely innocent people as a result of this misguided war on drugs means a lot more to me than any teen who's addicted to crack. It's not that I don't feel sorry for those addicted teens, but it's not as heartbreaking as innocent deaths. Sorry.

And I'm very aware that many children lose their parents to drug addictions. My niece lost my brother to meth. We all lost my brother to meth. (He isn't dead, but his soul is pretty much gone). This war on drugs is clearly doing precisely jack when we see addicts left and right.

So maybe I argue not for the LEGALITY of drugs, just the end of this "war". Educate the masses on the reality of things. THAT is how you fight battles.

But to say that ALL drugs should be legalized is a very slippery slope.Hello again, J:

We're CLOSER to each other than you might think... You suggested earlier, that because I'm a Democrat, that I probably have this druggie, left wing, hippy idea that everybody should just do their own thing...

Nothing could be farther from the truth.. Yes, I smoke pot, but I DON'T want children to have access to it. In fact, I'm about as ANTI-DRUG as you get. So, I don't want you to think of legalization as SURRENDER, because it's absolutely NOT..

I'm fine if you want to call it drug war phase #2. But, THIS phase shouldn't be fought with cops, courts and prison. It should be fought with whatever your profession brings to the table, and the TRUTH. But, the OBJECTIVE is the same, and that's to REDUCE drug abuse.

Let's talk about the TRUTH for a minute. Do you know that when we FINALLY started telling the TRUTH about cigarettes, we reduced its use by HALF? Yes, it took over 25 years, but it WORKED... There are now about 150 MILLION Americans who DON'T smoke, who WOULD have without the truth. Do you know how many cases of cancer were prevented by telling the truth? How about heart attacks? Do you know that we DID that, WITHOUT putting a single person in jail??

excon

Kids join gangs to gain love and acceptance, they call it a "family" because they are missing something at home.
So what can be done about that?

Obviously there will always be a black marcket not just for drugs but for smokes,alcohol and stolen electrical equipment.

We all know the health risks of smoking and drinking those figures hold a bigger death toll per year then anyy other drug even considering percentage of useres. So I don't think that you should be a crminal for choosing a different substance to use then alcohol.

Alcohol is sold but not everyone is addicted to it, you can use or abuse drugs.

If you become an adict then it is a health issue, and the money they use on the 'waR ON DRUGS' SHOULD BE SPENT on health care for addicts.

In the UK there is brilliant surport, although drugs are iligal you won't go to jail just for possestion, you just get a warning. You can seek counceling for free, and get perscription drugs for free to help you over come your adiction.

Legalise not criminlise.

Hello again, J:

We're CLOSER to each other than you might think... You suggested earlier, that because I'm a Democrat, that I probably have this druggie, left wing, hippy idea that everybody should just do their own thing...

Nothing could be farther from the truth.. Yes, I smoke pot, but I DON'T want children to have access to it. In fact, I'm about as ANTI-DRUG as you get. So, I don't want you to think of legalization as SURRENDER, because it's absolutely NOT..

I'm fine if you wanna call it drug war phase #2. But, THIS phase shouldn't be fought with cops, courts and prison. It should be fought with whatever your profession brings to the table, and the TRUTH. But, the OBJECTIVE is the same, and that's to REDUCE drug abuse.

Let's talk about the TRUTH for a minute. Do you know that when we FINALLY started telling the TRUTH about cigarettes, we reduced its use by HALF?? Yes, it took over 25 years, but it WORKED... There are now about 150 MILLION Americans who DON'T smoke, who WOULD have without the truth. Do you know how many cases of cancer were prevented by telling the truth? How about heart attacks? Do you know that we DID that, WITHOUT putting a single person in jail???

excon

So which is it really where you stand on this subject??


Legalization ?

Legalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalization)

Or

Decriminalization ?

Decriminalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decriminalization)

Hello again, dad:

I don't think I stuttered... LEGALIZATION!

excon

Hello again, dad:

I don't think I stuttered... LEGALIZATION!

excon

Just making sure because it sounded like you were making a case for decriminalization. Whereby there are still some controls in place (like age of consent and age to purchase) but penalties removed for the consenting adult that wishs to embibe.

Im more for decriminalization and a portion of the profits being returned to rehab then outright legalization.

J-9 makes a valid point. The fact is that there are some drugs that are too dangerous to legalize .

We can be against the widespread legalization of dangerous drugs AND at the same time be against the incarceration of addicts .

You say you are adament against it being legal for minors .Glad to see there are some lines in the sand we won't cross .But the truth is that minors get their hands on controlled substances including cigarettes and tobacco ;pot ,narcotics anyway. So what would you do?. Treat the kid and make the seller the criminal.

Bueno.. that is my position defined for all illegal drug use.

Hello again, dad:

I don't know from Wikkipedia... If Jim Beam is "decriminalized", then I want my Maui Wowie to be "decriminalized".

excon

Hello again, dad:

I don't know from Wikkipedia... If Jim Beam is "decriminalized", then I want my Maui Wowie to be "decriminalized".

excon

Yes my friend. That is what it means. Its regulated without the penalties. Although you still aren't allowed to make your own. Drugs could have a simaler variation so if you want to be a commercial grower your still going to need that permit. Or get better cammo to cover it up :)

Obviously there will always be a black marcket not just for drugs but for smokes,alchol and stolen electrical equipment. . . Alchol is sold but not everyone is addicted to it, you can use or abuse drugs.

If you become an adict then it is a health issue, and the money they use on the 'waR ON DRUGS' SHOULD BE SPENT on health care for addicts.
Wisdom spoken here.


So maybe I argue not for the LEGALITY of drugs, just the end of this "war". Educate the masses on the reality of things. THAT is how you fight battles.
The only way to end it all, is to legalize it all. True, education does work. It will stop some of the youth from using, at least for a while, but, it's not a permanent solution, and it also has no bearing on the cartel related deaths you mentioned. The only way to stop that mess is to take the market share away and open the drug trade to the public, i.e. legalize it. This is marketing 101.

Just making sure because it sounded like you were making a case for decriminalization. Whereby there are still some controls in place (like age of consent and age to purchase) but penalties removed for the consenting adult that wishs to embibe.

Im more for decriminalization and a portion of the profits being returned to rehab then outright legalization.

I'm with you there Dad.

The only effect that making something illegal has is to make it more expensive. Which puts the money in the hands of the mafia, gangs, and assorted other criminals.
Lots and lots of money which gives them power to expand.

It costs billions to keep the people locked up when their only crime was getting high. And as has been stated ,that money could be used to do some good in treatment , education, and health care.

This , as Ex said, is a health issue and lack of real education about drugs that should be taught in school.
But it is the fact that it is also a moral issue to so many that keeps it where it is now, fueling the growth of gangs , crime, and violence instead of combating it.

If it is legalized , it would take the majority of the money out of criminal hands where it could be put to better use helping those with problems and not locking them up with the hard core to get educated in bigger and better ways to increase the problem that is already out of control.

It has never been a war on drugs. It is, and has been, a war on Americans .

Alcohol and tobacco cost more in health care and ruin more lives than all the other drugs combined . Why are they not illegal ?
Oh that's right , it was tried and failed miserably and got completely out of control until it was legalized again.

If we don't learn from the past we will be repeating the same mistakes.We need to stop judging the morality and address the reality of what it is doing to our population.

The only way to end it all, is to legalize it all. True, education does work. It will stop some of the youth from using, at least for a while, but, it's not a permanent solution, and it also has no bearing on the cartel related deaths you mentioned. The only way to stop that mess is to take the market share away and open the drug trade to the public, i.e. legalize it. This is marketing 101.

You're right. I just fight the fight that I know well :). I am not equipped to argue for legalization the way I am equipped to argue for education.

Martin and Ex have done it splendidly well.

By the way, Martin... amazing post!

I am not equipped to argue for legalization the way I am equipped to argue for education.


Your equiptment looks fine to me :)

Don't worry about it. Present it as you feel it should be since this is an opinion post. Be yourself.

Your equiptment looks fine to me :)

Dont worry about it. Present it as you feel it should be since this is an opinion post. Be yourself.

I concur with the wise man with good eyesight from California.

I find this such a thorny problem to get my head around.

Here in the UK cannabis was downgraded from a class B to a class C drug some years ago, meaning that possession would be unlikely to result in prosecution unless the amount suggested the holder was a supplier. The good news, use of cannabis, especially amongst the age group 16-24 fell. The bad news, admissions to psychiatric hospitals for cannabis induced pyschosis rose alarmingly. It seems those who were already taking cannabis took this as a green light to take stronger and stronger skunk and many of them came a cropper. Also, whilst cannabis use fell, cocaine use rose.

In addition we also had a relaxation of alcohol laws. Where previously the availability of alcohol was limited - pubs had specifically permitted licensing hours - alcohol became freely available pretty much any time. This was felt to be a way of putting a stop to binge-drinking as it was felt that if people could get their drink whenever they wanted they would be more relaxed about it and not feel the need to drink themselves senseless before closing time. Apparently many studies were done on drinking cultures worlwide to come to this solution. The result - an explosion in binge drinking, alcohol related violence, and alcohol related medical admissions.

The political head-scratching continues. Do we relax things further or tighten them back up? I'm not surprised the politicians can't decide. I couldn't call it.

It seems a certain percentage of this popluation have a desire to get mindless regardless of what you do about it. I don't understand the appeal so I haven't a clue how to tackle it.

I'm staying right here on the fence until I see a clear reason to jump either way.

It seems a certain percentage of this popluation have a desire to get mindless regardless of what you do about it. I don't understand the appeal so I haven't a clue how to tackle it.Hello QLP:

I agree with you.. But, what is there TO do? Keep them home and off the highway.. But, to PREVENT the majority from enjoying their diversions, because the minority can't handle it, is BONKERS.

excon

I have no idea. If someone wants to get quietly out of their skull that's their business. The trouble is they often don't do so quietly without affecting other people.

Provide nice safe padded rooms with free drugs supplies?

Serously I have no solutions. I might be getting splinters in my nether regions from staying on the fence but the only point I can really make is that I can see why there is much division of opinion.

Here is a cluster of drug war and marijuana info related sites that are current and informative.

DRCNet Online Library of Drug Policy (http://www.druglibrary.org/)

I find this such a thorny problem to get my head around.

Here in the UK cannabis was downgraded from a class B to a class C drug some years ago, meaning that possesion would be unlikely to result in prosecution unless the amount suggested the holder was a supplier. The good news, use of cannabis, especially amongst the age group 16-24 fell. The bad news, admissions to psychiatric hospitals for cannabis induced pyschosis rose alarmingly. It seems those who were already taking cannabis took this as a green light to take stronger and stronger skunk and many of them came a cropper. Also, whilst cannabis use fell, cocaine use rose.

In addition we also had a relaxation of alcohol laws. Where previously the availability of alcohol was limited - pubs had specifically permitted licensing hours, alcohol became freely available pretty much any time. This was felt to be a way of putting a stop to binge-drinking as it was felt that if people could get their drink whenever they wanted they would be more relaxed about it and not feel the need to drink themselves senseless before closing time. Apparently many studies were done on drinking cultures worlwide to come to this solution. The result - an explosion in binge drinking, alcohol related violence, and alcohol related medical admissions.

The political head-scratching continues. Do we relax things further or tighten them back up? I'm not surprised the politicians can't decide. I couldn't call it.

It seems a certain percentage of this popluation have a desire to get mindless regardless of what you do about it. I don't understand the appeal so I haven't a clue how to tackle it.

I'm staying right here on the fence until I see a clear reason to jump either way.

Great points and post.

Here , I hope is a nudge off that fence.

Cannabis induced psychosis is a term I have only very rarely encountered. And if four or five people got it that would be a considerable rise in my book.
I suspect the pot made other conditions they may have been suffering from more obvious , or added to it. (My opinion , I am no doctor)
But if it were the cause... I'd for sure have it.
The major affect it had on me was to keep me from losing my mind. I am convinced of this and have "studied" it's affect for about 45 years and am more than confidant and secure in my conclusion regardless of what anyone else says. I know what I have experienced.

You brought out another fact that has been consistent where drugs were legalized or decriminalized .
Use fell across all age groups , and crime rates decreased. Violent crime , robbery, theft, mugging dropped as it was no longer necessary to support the high prices illegal drugs demand.

It has worked wherever it has been implemented . Hopefully America will join the modern world one day with legal controlled drugs and healthcare for all who need it.
Hopefully.

QLP
It seems a certain percentage of this popluation have a desire to get mindless regardless of what you do about it. I don't understand the appeal so I haven't a clue how to tackle it.

On the button. Regardless of the substance or legal status there is a hard-core, severely addicted, treatment resistant group. About <3% of user population. I have found that true throughout history. Ex: type II (skid-row) alcoholism.

martinizing2
I suspect the pot made other conditions they may have been suffering from more obvious , or added to it.

Doctor or not, you have struck on the current medical consensus in relation to marijuana and psychosis, schizophrenia.

Of course, with any psychoactive substance there will be some that have adverse reaction which holds true for all drugs, legal, illegal, prescription.

Agreed the NHS in the UK surports drug users. There is a good system that if you admit to your doctor you have drug problems they can refer you to counciling and offer suport to come off adictive substances. In the UK you can be perscibed subutex (buprenorphine) for coming off heroin. It is much better then the methodone option which is much harder to come off and has a higher toxic level then heroin, it's also just as adictive. Either of these options you can take for free from the NHS if you don't work, or are on any other benefit.

In The US subutex is very expencive to everyone, methodone plan isn't free either which makes it obvious why people can't come off it. Not as much surport

CAnabis is legal in some staes if you get a perscription. The other states should follow suit... I hope.

But I think the US should have free health care for everyone.

Especially more surport for drug users.

There have been many studies done on the effects of taking drugs. One of the most resent was 'DR nutt's report'

He was hired by the UK Government to do a studies on drugs illegal or not.

He looked at 3 things

1. The damage to the body/ user (toxicity levels) and death toll, chances of death from long term use or the chance to kill you instantly.
2. How addictive the drug is.
3. Damage to society - crime etc.

Basically his findings were thought contrivers , but he had stuck to the research they wanted. They did not like what he found so he was SACKED/ FIRED lost his job.

Why ask for an expert opinion if you are just to dismiss his findings.

His findings are very interesting and you should research his work 'DR Nutt'

Make all drugs legal, 'the war on drugs' is massively disastrous. Make drug users non criminals.

Here's a wild leap with spidey senses all a-tingle.

I think Geesuzz and Dronit are the same person - read through the posts of both. Something very strange is going on.

Troll? Disturbed person? Something else?

Here's a wild leap with spidey senses all a-tingle.

I think Geesuzz and Dronit are the same person - read through the posts of both. Something very strange is going on.

Troll? Disturbed person? Something else?

Spidey senses are a little out of whack this time. They come from two different countries. ;)

So two people share this same writing style - ?

Amazing - thanks for the correction.

Excuse me. What would be the point of that. You know nothing about me. I have already posted against some of dronits points.

I assure you that I am one person most of the time only suffer from multiple personalitys.

That was a joke.

Stick on topic

Thank you, you are correct

Quoted from Geesuzz:
Agreed the NHS in the UK surports drug users. There is a good system that if you admit to your doctor you have drug problems they can refer you to counciling and offer suport to come off adictive substances. In the UK you can be perscibed subutex (buprenorphine) for coming off heroin. It is much better then the methodone option which is much harder to come off and has a higher toxic level then heroin, it's also just as adictive. Either of these options you can take for free from the NHS if you don't work, or are on any other benefit.

In The US subutex is very expencive to everyone, methodone plan isn't free either which makes it obvious why people can't come off it. Not as much surport

CAnabis is legal in some staes if you get a perscription. The other states should follow suit... I hope.

I would be interested to see how this support in the UK and other countries affects the overall presence of drug culture/crime in those countries? We ought to look at it if we're going to argue to bring those practices to the states.

I'm certainly not disagreeing with you, because I think that we need health resources here (USA) for drug addicts rather than tossing them in jail where it does them and society no good.

SIDE NOTE: Geesuzz, please scroll to the bottom of the page and write your answers in the "Answer this Question" text box instead of "commenting" on other posts. Using the "answer" feature makes it easier for us to interact with your posts :) Thanks for joining the conversation!

There is some information in the table at the bottom of this document.
Don't understand what it means about the % use in the Netherlands though.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/1031/103105.htm

Quoteing southamerica 'I would be interested to see how this support in the UK and other countries affects the overall presence of drug culture/crime in those countries? We ought to look at it if we're going to argue to bring those practices to the states.

The drug use still goes on, but you have the option to seek help to stop for free and many do.

Also a user would not go to jail if arrested, the courts may force them to do a 'DRO' which is a drug rehabilitation order. In this order you are sent to counselling and a doctor. To try and help. This order would only put in place if you were addicted to something like heroin, crack etc.

Drugs like MDMA, LSD, canabis, the police will only confiscate if you get arrested and given a warning.

Dealing drugs they take more seriously but if you are an addict and that's while you are selling them you would get a lighter punishment.

MDMA, LSD, canabis, ketermin - don't create any crime like robbery or mugging because they are not addictive substances.

I think if you give support to drug users the drug related crimes would be less, because most drug users only rob when desperate.

When I was a drug addict over 7 years ago I did not steal or rob, when it got to the point I could not afford my addiction I sought help went on the 'subutex' program and reduced over a period of about 1 year. Then I was clean off every thing. The NHS (national health service) saved my life and I am thankful we have this system.

I hope in the future you get this service in the US

Classification Drugs Maximum penalties
Class A Heroin, LSD, ecstasy, amphetamines (prepared for injection), cocaine and crack cocaine, magic mushrooms. For possession: 7 years' imprisonment and/or fine.
For supply: life imprisonment and/or fine.

Class B Amphetamines, methylamphetamine, barbiturates, codeine. For possession: 5 years' imprisonment and/or fine.
For supply: 14 years' imprisonment and/or a fine.

Class C Cannabis, temazepam, anabolic steroids, valium, ketamine, methylphenidate (Ritalin), gamma-hydroxy butyrate (GHB). For possession: 2 years' imprisonment and/or fine.
For supply: 14 years' imprisonment and/or fine.

Although that is what the guide lines say the judges do make the distinction between MDMA, LSD, MUSHROOMS compared with heroin and crack/ coke. Also the prison times they can give you that but no one ever goes down for that long. That is the maximum sentence but judges are using DRO (Drug rehabilitation order) and community service in most cases.

It is very unlikely you go to prison with possetion of any thing, it's also unlikely you would even go to court. The police would probably just give you a warning.

The police would probably just give you a warning.Hello geesuzz:

You had me up to there.. That's just dead wrong - DEAD WRONG! The cops are NOT nice people. Jails and prisons are FULL of drug USERS - absolutely overflowing!

excon

I don't believe all police are bad, there are some bad ones.

Now in the UK the prisons are full so they are not putting drug users in jail, unless they do other crimes like robbery.


As this is an anominous web page I will tell you my true dealings with the police.

I was a heroin addict but ask for help from my doctor, got on the 'subutex program' which lasted about 1 year
And now I am clean.

The thing is I was into lots of other drugs at partys, LSD, Ketermin, MDMA, Weed, 2CB, DMT,
I was stop and searched for being clearly on drugs and they found enough to arrest me and raid my house

I was aressted for 4 counts of posestion of a class A substance
1 count of a class be drug (the weed)
1 count of a class c substance (ketermin) surprisingly, who would thing its less harmful then weed??

I got police bail and a few court aperances and I got 'DRR order' (a drug test once a week) and comunitie service.

The best thing was they only really tested for heroin and crack which I was already off.

But the police during my arrests didn't seem to bad.

Its because the prisons are over filled so you are less likely to get sent down for drugs.#

I'm up for all drugs being legal.

Don't forget I was talking about the UK not the US

I hope no one judges me for my past

Please, please PLEASE stop using the comments feature!

Why?

Comment on J_9's post

Please, please PLEASE stop using the comments feature!

why?

If you use the comment field, we cannot quote you when we respond.

C'mon, let's stop punishing the users for poor site design; it's not their fault.

I say "not his/her fault" the first round. After that I figure the OP can't figure out how AMHD works - or doesn't care - or needs to hear a reason ("Why?").

I say "not his/her fault" the first round. After that I figure the OP can't figure out how AMHD works - or doesn't care - or needs to hear a reason ("Why?").

Greenie!

Why? Because you've been asked repeatedly not to. That should be reason enough!

I agree that it's not the users fault that the comment feature is available, but he's been asked to stop using it. Why shouldn't matter.

On June 21, 2011 the US government (via the DEA and citing the opinion of the Department of Health and Human Serives (DHHS), denied a petition to reschedule marijuana to a less restrictive category (http://www.norcalblogs.com/bored/MJ-CRC_Petition_DEA_Answer.pdf). DHHS stated that marijuana “has no accepted medical use in the United States...” [petition was filed October 2002]

However, the US government, via this same agency DHHS holds a patent on cannabinoids (Patent 6630507 Issued on October 7, 2003 (http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6630507.html)) wherein the very same agency states:


This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease...

Why would your federal government make polar opposite statements in officially filed documents?

Why would your federal government make polar opposite statements in officially filed documents?Hello Doc:

I could make a stab at it. Obama hopes the move to the right will insure his re-election. That's more important than righting a long standing wrong.

Here in Washington, we were on the verge of passing historic legislation that would finally make the distribution of Medical Cannabis orderly. The governor, upon being WARNED by the US Attorney that state employees would be in danger of ARREST IF the law was signed, of course, VETOED it.

That was OBAMA'S DHHS, and it's OBAMA'S US attorney.

Does the blatant hypocrisy you point out make a difference? Nahhhh. Can't be soft on drugs, you know.

excon

Hello Doc:

I could make a stab at it. Obama hopes the move to the right will insure his re-election. That's more important than righting a long standing wrong.

Here in Washington, we were on the verge of passing historic legislation that would finally make the distribution of Medical Cannabis orderly. The governor, upon being WARNED by the US Attorney that state employees would be in danger of ARREST IF the law was signed, of course, VETOED it.

That was OBAMA'S DHHS, and it's OBAMA'S US attorney.

Does the blatant hypocrisy you point out make a difference? Nahhhh. Can't be soft on drugs, you know.

excon

I think the outcome would be the same no matter who the US Attorney or President happens to be.

The lies and hypocrisy have been a part of US government policy since the early 1900's when the lies , laws ,and legislation got under way in regards to drugs.

Originally the laws were designed and implemented to make it easier to arrest , convict, and "keep the blacks and mexicans under the governments thumb" since they thought the blacks and mexicans were responsible for bringing it into the US and distributing it.

Those laws that are still being enforced and "enhanced" were never designed to control or abate drugs or their use. They are designed to control people and have worked as well as outlawing alcohol did but on a scale that has put so much money and power into the hands of the criminals , cartels, and gangs they are better funded, organized and armed than any of the agencies trying to stop them.

It is probably the smugglers and cartels working to keep drugs illegal .

What would they have to sell if it were legalized that could even come close to the revenue they are bringing in now?

Nothing.

Comparing UK drug laws with the US laws.

Basically The UK is very small but with high population, were as in the US there is plenty of room for prisons. UK prisons are over filled so drug crime makes it less likely to be a prison sentence.

But were ever you live there will always be a percentage that take drugs, I think it is wrong to criminalise a group of people who take different drugs to the ones that are legal.

LSD and MDMA for example is less addictive and less toxic then alcohol

Alcohol was iliogal in the 1930's in the US, proabition was deemed a bad idear as the trade of alcohol went to the black market and was run by gangsters.

Is drugs being illigal like proabition. Some people decide to take drugs but if they were legal there could be controle over quality.

Or do you think it would be worse for sociatey?

Let's put it this way, making things illegal doesn't seem to stop the problem, in fact it makes it worse, so we haven't tried making drugs legal or at least decriminalising personal use. The government could find an immediate solution to it's cash flow problems by nationalising distribution of drugs

Let's put it this way, making things illegal doesn't seem to stop the problem, in fact it makes it worse, so we haven't tried making drugs legal or at least decriminalising personal use. The government could find an immediate solution to it's cash flow problems by nationalising distribution of drugs

China had a VERY effective solution to ramant Opium use... of course it was rather draconian and extreme... but damned effective.