That is the thing, though. They represent a far greater health risk when they are under the control of criminal organizations. Before we prohibited their use, there were almost no deaths due to overdose and cross reaction. ALMOST NONE. People, when educated as to the effects, were able to use them without killing themselves or each other. Drug prohibition is simply a carryover from alcohol prohibition and was not specifically thought out or reasoned. Over 70 years ago, we rolled back alcohol prohibition because it was expensive, counterproductive, enriched criminals, and increased violence. It is time to roll back the other component of prohibition for the same reason. If you look at every study done since we banned drugs in 1914, they have all called for loosening the drug laws for the reasons I mention. Eventually these drugs will be legal again because prohibition does far more harm than the drugs themselves. It should be obvious that it is simply impossible to eliminate drug use. Drug use is ingrained in just about everything we do and recreational drugs are just an extension of that. However, the current policy has not reduced drug use at all and has actually caused MORE teens to have the desire to use, especially mar1juana. I believe we CAN have a positive impact on rates of use, but I KNOW that we can reduce availability to our young people, which will have the effect of reducing overall drug use in the long run. Again, it should be obvious that we will not incarcerate our way out of this problem. We have been trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results for over 3 decades now. In that time, rates of use have not been positively impacted, young people report higher levels of access to drugs year after year, and levels of violence continue to rise despite MASSIVE spending increases. I would ask you the same question I asked above. How many MORE people would you propose we incarcerate? Over 25% of the people in this country have used illegal drugs, would you recommend throwing all of them in jail?
Answer: All of them They are in jail because they commited a crime. Up until the law is changed they will continue to goto jail. So it's not acrime to try to change a law, but if you don't agree with a law and you continue to break it be ready to pay the consequences.
You are actually advocating for 70 million people to be put in jail (25% of Americans are estimated to have used illegal drugs, over 70 million people)? Or are you talking about the 15 million plus regular drug users? Are you willing to put in the kind of taxes that policy would require?
I like StupidMonikor's idea. It sounds good to me I would like to thank MacBeth for his continued support. Make all campaign contributions to the "Uncle Tim For Tyrant Fund."
If 70M illegally use drugs and there is enough resources to arrest and prosecute then do it. If we run out of rooms in the jails give them the maximum fines possible, slap on an ankle bracelet for home arrrest, give them access to counseling, ands subject them to random testing. If they fail the test send them to jail or take more of their money. And you don't need to raise taxes, just increase the fines to cover teh costs. If they don't have cash take their assets. Eventually they will either understand teh law and follow it, be so poor they can't afford drugs anyways or end up in prison.
You and Tim are officially out to lunch. We already spend a hundred billion per year on the drug war and what you two are talking about could easily run the bill up to a half trillion AND incarcerate a quarter of the population of the United States. Do you have any proof whatsoever that it would even do any good? The answer is no because despite massive spending increases, we have not affected rates of drug use one whit. In addition, people can get drugs in prison, which is supposed to be the most secure environment we can create. How much of our freedom would you say it is OK to give up in order to fulfill your dream of incarcerating each and every drug user? Should we give up the whole 4th amendment and allow the police to search us or our homes at any time? Should every American be subject to random drug testing? Should we just give up on the whole democracy thing and let John Walters be King? Should we scrap capitalism since the basic law of capitalism is what makes drugs available (supply and demand)?
The war on drugs is a billion dollar industry. It makes for higher employment figures. You hire medical staff , folks to build and maintain the facilities plus you have to hire guards to monitor the prisoners. Then when you can factor in the costs for having people on probation or parole. Go ahead and legalize pot and stop sending people to prison for smoking it. (even if they are on probation or parole) That should bring the numbers down. It would be a good start to see how things go and try something different other than the build add and increase method which I dont believe is working.
Do you have any proof that it would work in the US? Answer no. You're just reaching for things you hope would happen. Just because something you enjoy is illegal doesn't mean it should be legalized. Treat them like DUIs. Charge a large fine (include jail time depending on the seriousness), take away governemnt priveleges (like driving priveleges), and let the insurance folks (liability for auto and also include life and health insurance) jack up their rates or cancel their insurance.
How many of those folks are in prison because of a first time mar1juana possession offense (e.g. smoking as opposed to possession with intent to distribute)? I suspect it's not many.
I tend to agree. You can put anything you want in your body. Your body, your rules. I don't drink, but I have no problem with other adults drinking. Same thing with certain drugs. Smoke all the pot you want. It's your life. But if you get behind the wheel, you go to jail. Period. You can do whatever you want to yourself -- but when you directly endanger others, that's where the law should step in.
The answer is absolutely YES!!! In Holland, where pot has been decriminalized fro 30 years, young people use drugs at around HALF the rates of teens here. And they don't even have a unified, comprehensive approach like I do. In addition, a recent study showed that among adults, rates of mar1juana use are nearly identical between Amsterdam, where you can go into a coffee shop and buy it, and San Francisco, which is still part of the WOD. All of the scientific evidence, every single study done since prohibition of drugs was started, including some from the 1800s, have shown that liberalizing our drug laws is the only rational way to go. You can yell "Nuh-Uhhhhhh" all you want, but the science backs my argument. If you like and would agree to read at least some of them, I will be happy to post a list of significant studies done since the late 1800s along with a summary of their conclusions. For the record, I haven't done drugs since the 80s, have been a chemical abuse counselor, and have personally helped hundreds of people recover from drug use. I have researched this topic for a decade and a half, this isn't coming from some kid yelling "free the weed, woo-hoo!" (no offense intended to kids who yell things like that) In addition to all of that, if you wanted to screen the people who you hang out with, you can ask to see their "drug card." If they are licensed to use drugs you aren't comfortable with, you can choose to avoid those people if you like. Same goes for women who want to know what kind of man they are dating. If they are the type of man licensed to purchase barbiturates, she knows to be cautious of "date rape" drugs and the like. There are thousands of little side benefits to regulating drug sales, but the one that does it for me is... ...If we tightly regulate drug sales, we can drastically reduce our young people's access to drugs.
The key is that there are over a HALF MILLION nonviolent drug offenders in prison right now. Half a million people who have never been violent, thrown into places guaranteed to make those people worse and not better. And your query does not even go to the heart of the bigger question of whether imprisoning people over their choice of intoxicants is even justified. Drugs, in and of themselves, do not make people do anything. If we regulated and tracked drug sales, we could identify 99% of the problem users before they ever commit their FIRST crime. It will be much easier to keep those people out of jail when we treat the problem before it becimes addiction.
Exactly. There is already a breathalyzer for mar1juana and driving under the influence of ANY drug should be as illegal as driving drunk. We already have DUI laws, so that should not hold up the end of prohibition.
Being from Huntsville, I'm in favor of more criminals and bigger prisons. Ne'er-do-wells have kept many of rimrocker's family and friends gainfully employed.
I don't think you can compare European nations to the US. They are not as large in population or land size and not as ethnically and socially diverse as we are.
Which has what, exactly, to do with drug use? Drug use is relatively constant across racial lines as well as societal ones. In fact, rates of drug use are fairly constant across the globe, except that Holland, one of the few that have liberalized their drug laws, has FAR lower rates of teen drug use. They attribute it to taking away the "forbidden fruit" aspect.
The drug users will create jobs in treatment facilities, dispensaries, and the tracking service. The jobs will be a wash and the people guarding real criminals will have their jobs because criminals will have to serve their whole sentence. Why parole them (real criminals) when there is no shortage of beds?
Everything. If your experiment went wrong, there are a few hundred million more Americans than there are Dutch. That's a few million more problems that would plague our society. I really don't think Holland has a direct route or as many routes as we do to the drug lords. I don't think the Dutch have Russians, Italians, Mexicans, Chinese, Vietnamese, etc. operating in their largest cities, fighting each other and fighting internally for control of everything including drugs traffic. Besides, Hollywood magazines would go out of business because nobody would care who was buying illegal drugs.
As opposed to the unmitigated failure of the drug war, I would much rather deal with the problems that would come with regulation. Instead of wondering which of my son's friends uses drugs, I could be honest and open with him in making sure that he holds off on trying drugs at least until adulthood. Instead of arresting millions of people whose only crime is their choice of intoxicants, we can concentrate on finding and rehabilitating those who exhibit problem use. Instead of condemning all drug users to a life of crime, misery, and death, we could educate people to use only drugs that are relatively benign. Don't think I have any illusions about regulating being a panacea. I am aware that regulating drug use will not take away all of the problems that are a result of drug use in our society. I am just aware that (as you are, evidenced by your total lack of argument to the contrary) prohibition merely throws gasoline on the fire that is the issue of drug use and abuse. It pours salt in every wound caused by drug use and makes monstrous boulders out of issues like medical mar1juana, which should be pebbles. Their routes to cocaine aren't as strong since most comes from South America, but their ties to the heroin trade remain strong. Most of the heroin in Europe comes from Afghanistan and the VAST majority of the heroin that goes to Great Britain goes through Holland. They have as many ties to the drug lords as do All countries. Again, drug use is constant no matter the country, race, or religion. And here is the beautiful part... In a regulated market, NONE of the people you mention will be fighting for control of the drug traffic. It would be Eckerd, Walgreens, Merck, and Pfeiser competing for control. Legitimate businesses would control the drug trade and those violent criminal organizations would shrivel up and have to rely on income from gambling and prostitution. We would take over $60 billion per year out of the pockets of criminal organizations and would put that money into legitimate businesses and the government.
