Nice way to stereotype the people that put their butts on the line every day to keep your butt safe. I've known lotsa cops and lotsa corrections officers....some are stupid...some are highly intelligent. I've also known lotsa college professors and corporate execs as well.....some are stupid...some are highly intelligent.
I have a great deal of respect for law enforcement officers who "put their butts on the line every day." That is a big reason that the organization I put the most stock in with regards to drug policy is LEAP. www.leap.cc
Lol, never ended up as a state resident on that side of the bars, although I had a lot of acquaintances that did. Worst I did was spend a night or two on the county. andy, I wasn't equating support for legalization of drugs with disrespect for peace/correctional officers. Personally, I support legal weed, but not really too hip on coke and opiates being legal. As far as the whole "War on Drugs"...it's pretty much a failure and is supported by corporate america(and probably several gov't institutions) for their own greedy purposes.
That is very interesting information. However, where do you draw the line? Drugs breed crime. Almost all crime is property crime and almost all of that is committed by someone using drugs, looking for their next fix. But where do you draw the line?
I would take issue with your central premise that "drugs breed crime." According to LEAP (and dozens of other studies conducted over the last century), it is not drugs that breed crime, but prohibition. We have ceded control of an unbelievably lucrative market to criminals and thugs. These people settle their differences with violence and mayhem rather than with the police and court system. The massive markup (directly caused by prohibition) involved in drugs helps to ensure that addicts will commit crimes to get "their next fix." Where would I draw the line? The answer is that I really don't know, we don't have enough information to make an intelligent decision. A big part of the reason is that we cannot explore alternatives to prohibition given the policies we have in place. However, there is a lot of evidence that points to different strategies producing vastly superior outcomes... In Holland, where mar1juana use is tolerated, their young people use drugs at around half the rate we see here. In Switzerland, prescription heroin trials have shown that addicts can live productive, crime free lives when they do not have to commit crimes to buy their fix on the street. They have also shown that addicts are far more likely to agree to treatment options when they get their drugs from a licensed, regulated facility that exists to help addicts. So, though I don't know where the line should be drawn in the future, I know without doubt or question that the line that has been drawn for nearly a century is in the wrong place. That one needs to be erased so that we can intelligently decide how to approach the issue of drug use and abuse in our society.
Yep, I agree! Just like flies cause garbage! LOL Moon, I'd change your thread title to read: "Do we really need a one millionth thread whining about how drugs aren't legal and defending druggies?"
If t_j's post contains anything remotely approaching a lucid, cogent argument, please quote it. I won't hold my breath.
Well say drugs do become legal. They still won't be free. You'd have to buy them from somewhere just like you do right now as they're illegal. I think there would still be crime for people to obtain money to get their drugs. Unemployed drug addicts aren't going to get a job to support their habit when drugs are legalized. But I see where you're coming from and you make some good points.
No, but even with massive taxation, the prices would be less than they are today. In addition, if we simply take the blinders off and allow the states to decide on (and subject to scientific study) their own drug policies, we might see things like the prescription heroin program, which does provide free heroin to addicts (heroin is one of the few drugs I would not sell to users due to its massive physical addiction factor), allowing them to lead productive lives that are not possible under prohibition. Yes, but the difference would be that adults (licensed if I had my way) would be able to purchase a clearly labeled, regulated product from a licensed, legitimate businessperson rather than from thugs and criminals off the street. Legitimate businesspeople would have a vested interest in making sure that their products did not get into the hands of kids. They will if they can make enough money at a real job to feed their habit. Plus, if they are actually addicts, they would be the people we would target with treatment. Addicts are a very small part of the "drug problem." The estimate is that 1.3% of the population is addicted to drugs, which is not an epidemic. Thank you. Please feel free to ask more questions and probe the issue for yourself. I am more than happy to answer people who actually engage in meaningful debate.
