The Economist is a right-of-center weekly from the UK that I like quite a lot. While I'm on the other side of the political center line, the writing is extremely clear and the arguments usually cogent. Even when I don't agree, it's thought provoking and the articles are not over long. Even so, I don't have time to read it regularly. Weekly issues pile up fast (and the journals Science and Nature are ahead in the queue and often don't get read). Still, I do read it when I can and this week there is an editorial on drug policy where I find myself in complete agreement: it's (past) time to legalize drugs:
Next week ministers from around the world gather in Vienna to set international drug policy for the next decade. Like first-world-war generals, many will claim that all that is needed is more of the same. In fact the war on drugs has been a disaster, creating failed states in the developing world even as addiction has flourished in the rich world. By any sensible measure, this 100-year struggle has been illiberal, murderous and pointless. That is why The Economist continues to believe that the least bad policy is to legalise drugs.“Least bad” does not mean good. Legalisation, though clearly better for producer countries, would bring (different) risks to consumer countries. As we outline below, many vulnerable drug-takers would suffer. But in our view, more would gain. (The Economist)
I don't use illegal drugs, but I have used legal ones (I smoked when young, I take a drink now and then, I use the occasional anxiolytic or narcotic pain reliever, although unlike Rush Limbaugh I'm not addicted). All around me I see the wreckage and collateral damage of a stupid drug policy: prisons full to bursting, gang wars and the gangsterism that comes from prohibition, a near narco state on our southern border, bodies wrecked and broken from dirty products and no treatment, enormous costs to our economy, spreading HIV infection, broken families, a ready source of income for terrorists. And that's just the short list.
Let's be clear: The Economist is not just calling for the legalization of marijuana (an obvious baby step that our paralyzed society can't make). It is calling for legislation to make all forms of drugs, including heroin, legal but under control and taxable. Sale to minors would be banned, as are sales of cigarettes and alcohol, now. Part of the huge cost savings (in the many billions of dollars) could go into accessible and effective programs of harm reduction: needle exchange, addiction treatment, public education (as for tobacco), policies that discourage adoption. Would this reduce the amount of drug taking? No one knows, but probably not. What it would do is reduce the cost and harm of drug use, turning it into a public health problem instead of a law enforcement problem. Like cigarettes and alcohol, drugs cause great harm to people, so any solution that allows their continued use is a bad solution. As The Economist says, however, it is the least bad solution, while the current one is a catastrophically bad solution.
The Economist has political reasons. They prefer market solutions and a libertarian philosophy. I'm not a market zealot but I recognize when non-market solutions have failed miserably, producing a distorted market that continues at full tilt and terrible damage and cost. As for the libertarian aspect, like a lot of lefties, I'm frequently a libertarian in matters of social policy. So this is a matter of convergence from both Left and Right.
It's the crazy "Center" that's the problem. Read the whole thing here. Cogent and clear. Too bad that's not enough.
- Log in to post comments
More consequences of the stupid drug war.
It is clear that the current approach to drug policy is a total social and financial failure. It is equally clear that there is no benefit to prohibiting drugs as a matter of government policy.
If you are driving while under the influence you are putting other peoples lives at risk. There are laws against that and they should be strictly enforced. If you are mugging people to get cash for your habit, then deal with the mugging as a crime. If you are just getting high on the weekend with a few friends using money you earned, then their is no reason to treat it as a criminal activity.
When I post-doc'd in child psychiatry, I was outspoken that almost no research was being done on why children start using drugs. I was astonished to find that no one in psychiatry was interested -- they assumed that 'of course' everyone would use drugs if they were available. With uniformed assumptions like that, we have lost the battle. Children and adults take drugs because they are stressed, depressed, angry . . etc. and we do not respond to people who are troubled in ways that can help them.
Especially in the United States, there is a *massive* economic interest in continuing the war on drugs: the Prison Industrial and Militarized Law Enforcement Industrial complexes.
Whats next Revere, gubbermint funded drugs too? Or pilots that are stoned legally, kids wiped out on telephone poles and the effects on people who have no problems at all. What do you say to them Revere? We are all born equal and we make choices. They make choices to break the law, so you come up with an idea that we just change the law so that it would do what? Fix it?!!!!
A stoned society is just that. There hasnt been any war on drugs, just a lack of proper laws and their enforcement. You are touting capitulation. But I would expect that.
Here is how I would start and using the law to do it. Up the criminalization. Execution of drug dealers and wholesale bombings of drug crops. Use the law to grab drug kingpins and to bring them back to the US for trial and execution.
Oh, this is one I know very well. We track aircraft all the way from origin to the touchdown using surveillance and we do nothing to them. We should just put fighters up and order the offenders to follow else we shoot them down. We know what they have on the planes, we know what they have in the trucks and cars and we give them rights. They always have the right to surrender and they should be afforded that. But baring the obvious facts we should shoot down drug planes. You have two grandkids Revere.. How about we give them some heroin for lunch and breakfast for a week and see what you think after that time. Oh but its legal right? How about the pregnant women and their use of MJ, heroin and coke addicted babies in the womb. Who in the hell is going to pay for that? So now we have all of the stellar bottom feeders out of jail too. What do you think they are going to do Revere...Get a job?
Oh we should execute them without a doubt. But oh, but they got rights.
So you have a wholesale capitulation that legalization is the answer? Prohibition created a huge back ended market and it too was handled wrong. You have seen what drugs do to people Revere and how you can come up with this as being an answer to a problem is beyond me.
Taxation for what? Probably to pay for all of the carnage this would cause. I have friends who started in the 70's, were fully hooked up by the 80's and then the coke rage hit. They still run down every day to Lamar or Summer Avenue to pick up their hit for the day. So now they get to go to the convenience store and pick it up and the US Government becomes the biggest goddamn pusher in the history of the planet. Yeah, right. Listen, some operate heavy machinery, some are just undetected airport workers. Quite a few have checked out of society, some have checked out via HIV/AIDS, one or two checked out from being shot in drug deals gone south. It would disintegrate the fabric of our society so fast it would be a blur.
But this is typical of the left of center. Rather than dealing with a problem we will just have a society thats stoned. Then that society not only will have to deal with a few of the bottom feeders, they will have to deal with most of them. They arent in jail for dealing, they are in a rehab trying to get clean from government induced stupors. After a while, the numbers start adding up and the government has to raise taxes again and again to meet the costs of doing this stuff. I like prisons myself but the psych wards would be full of violent drug users rather than prisons as violent drug users. The difference is the abdication of responsibility for their own acts and now the government is in charge of the corner fix.
Finally when they tax their fixes, and it gets too expensive there will be bootlegging again like they do down here with moonshine.
Sounds very much like Rome just before its fall Revere, and very socialist in its approach to what really shouldnt be a problem. You get caught with drugs, you pull a Saudi Arabia on them. You get caught selling drugs you do a French Revolution on them. This crosses the line on what it would do to the people and their families. The closet addiction problems in this country are rife. So then we legalize it and then get yet another bill because someone else has a big problem. It is also just another left wing experiment in society... Lets do this because it costs too much to prevent it. Everyone has a little opium den on the corner. That is what you are suggesting Revere and it would tear this country apart.
Legalizing addiction is what you are suggesting and the carrot is that we can make money off of suffering. How many hours of productivity are taken up getting some shit? How many hours using it? The insurance companies will NEVER insure someone who has a DUI if everyone is stoned. So then where does the compensation for these peoples actions come from when they kill, maim or destroy someone elses lives? Nowhere, because the nanny state is the purveyor of this filth. Employers will pay astronomical sums for insurance especially in the trades because of something like this.
Well, he was tanked when he stuck his hand into a 440 volt transformer. What is this Revere... Change we can believe in? More "Yes we can?"
Anyone know how much it costs to take care of one drug addict a year in the socialist states of the EU? Yep, and everyone else gets to pay for it. But thats okay, we were born equal most of us..... Permanent sub-culture creation and a tumble down.
While I am no proponent... We need higher criminalization of certain laws and that entails mandatory execution for offenses like drug dealing. After a while you wont have a drug problem. The users will have very limited availability and the dealers will work for Lehman Brothers, ACORN, Fannie or Freedie, or in the US Treasury. There they will have access to all the money they can steal... And thats legal too.
Was wondering revere why you never posted on this, am pleased to see that you have.
Big Pharma will fight it and we know how powerful they are with their dirty money. Plus there's thousands of stories that distort the truth.
I believe the BS 'war on drugs' propaganda has been very effective and now people don't know which side is up or down. Just shows the horrendous level of stupidity and successful manipulation by those who do benefit by continuing this.
There are thousands of police who know and believe that the current "drug" laws are a waste of time and effort too.
As far as the driving thing, well, while Kevin sounds like he's in favor of legalization he's been snagged and subjected to artful lies.
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7459
Cannabis and Driving: A Scientific and Rational Review
By Paul Armentano
Policy debates regarding marijuana law reform invariably raise the question: "How does society address concerns regarding pot use and driving?" The subject is worthy of serious discussion. NORMLâs Board of Directors addressed this issue by ratifying a âno drivingâ clause to the organizationâs âPrinciples of Responsible Cannabis Useâ1 stating, âAlthough cannabis is said by most experts to be safer with motorists than alcohol and many prescription drugs, responsible cannabis consumers never operate motor vehicles in an impaired condition.â
Nevertheless, questions remain regarding the degree to which smoking cannabis impairs actual driving performance. Unlike alcohol, which is known to increase driversâ risk-taking behavior and is a primary contributor in on-road accidents, marijuanaâs impact on psychomotor skills is subtle and its real-world impact in automobile crashes is conflicting.
Drugged Driving: True Threat Or False Panic?
(read on by clicking link above) .......
Ya' don't get it MRK, ya' just don't get it.
Yes, the only reason a doctor doesn't give his grandchildren heroin is because it's illegal.
Only troubled, unhappy people use/abuse drugs. People who want to keep prohibition really want to use drugs, but they know they are only kept in check by the threat legal punishment.
Those of us who have no desire to use drugs know that the anti-drug laws are only making a bad situation worse.
"Only troubled, unhappy people use/abuse drugs".
Not true cc2, not true at all.
--------------------------------------
Judge Michael McSpadden, one of sixteen Houston/Harris County judges who see the drug war as draconian.
Oaksterdam I - Richard Lee, founder of Oaksterdam University, Dale Geringer of California NORML, Roger LaChance of Medical Cannabis Safety Commission, Chris Conrad, publisher and Court Qualified Marijuana Expert, Atty. James Anthony, Atty. Robert Raich & Terry Nelson with LEAP report.
Mike Gray, author of Drug Crazy & Chairman of Common Sense for Drug Policy + RN Ken Wolski reports on progress of marijuana law in New Jersey
John Delaney, a working Texas judge decries the drug war + Ethan Nadelmann of Drug Policy Alliance says "Just Say No To Kelloggs'" & retired USAF Lt. Col Russ Shaw calls for common sense in the drug war
Cliff Schaffer of DrugLibrary.org re financial impact on waging the drug war & Radley Balko on Michael Phelps, Doug McVay with Drug War Facts, Phil Smith on cartel support of banks & Winston Francis with the Official Government Truth
Those names above are only a handful of intelligent, responsible individuals that have valid arguments concerning the 'drug war'.
Lea - What are you on? You can't read what I said??!?
The people you listed aren't trying to change the laws so that they can use drugs. They know that people use drugs are troubled and unhappy -- that drug users need treatment not jail.
So M. Randolh Kruger, your logic is that society (including you) is so feeble minded that if drugs were made legal everybody wouldn't be able to control themselves and would just become a bunch of drug addicts.
Anyone who thinks that current drug policy is keeping drugs away from your kids is so out of touch with reality it's sad! As long as they have the money they can purchase what ever drug they want, without ID or a prescription! So the simple fact is if you support prohibition then you support teenage drug addiction and organized crime!
When will people learn that alcohol is the worlds favourite drug and no law will ever change that, just like cannabis is the worlds second favourite drug and no law will ever change that either.
Also did you know that they use far less cannabis (or any other illegal drug) in the netherlands where anyone who's over 18 can by it from a shop, than they do in the US, Uk or any one of the euopean countries next door who have strict drug laws. How does that fit with your thoery of making the laws more strict?
Legalize cannabis (for adults!) and put dangerous drugs like cocaine and heroin on prescription, problem solved. Maybe there would be a small amount of people that would continue selling them illegaly (like people sometimes do with tobacco and alcohol) but it WOULD not be anywhere near as profitable as it is now and it would NOT be enough to support organized crime the way it does today!
âLeast badâ does not mean good. Lea.
Bad is bad. No need to promote it.
But we have to help and solve the problem, as far as a health caring person.
I have seen people who had addicted to drug mostly end up with less thinking ability in Thailand. Something like that the brain had been damaged. Their potentials have been reduced consequently
Cc2, I wonder if you include alcohol in your list of drugs that people only use if there sad? So everyone who comes home from a hard days work and feels like having a glass of wine, beer or bourban must be miserable?
I argee with you 100% that only unhappy people become drug addicts, but there's a big difference between people who enjoy smoking a joint when they come home from a hard days work and people who need to stick a needle in there arm 3 times a day to be able to cope.
When will people learn that there's a big difference between use and abuse when's the last time you've seen some one who claims there addicted to magic mushrooms or peyote there strictly (unlike alcohol) recreational drugs and have been used for thousands of years to expaned the mind and get a better understanding of the world around us.
Why do people fill the need to keep drugs flowing though our schools without regulation just so they can get the satisfaction of knowing it's illegal?
paiwan --
As a cognitive psychologist, I can attest to your observation about the degradation of intellect due to drug use. People who do drugs assume others cannot tell that they are addicted/abusing -- but it's readily discernable because their cognitions are so far off kilter.
I love your term: health caring people!!
The idea that marijuana is a drug which people only use when they're unhappy is absurd. Sometimes, people use it because there's a Laser Floyd show at the Science Museum planetarium.
Shine on, you craaaa-zy diamond. . . .
The drug trade today is likely 1 trillion dollars (3 times official figures which understate the volume for political reasons), and with some of these drugs like Marijuana being legalized in the not too distant future, and you know this newly legal trade will be well controlled and regulated, not to mention profitable. Soros is behind the legalize drugs movement and he backed Obama. Cannabis cultivation in Afghanistan has risen dramatically in the last few years and could replace opium production if Marijuana becomes legal, so controlling Afghanistan could be a lucrative proposition.
Several years global supply of opium have been stockpiled over the last few years in Afghanistan as production has skyrocketed since the Taliban left power. One reason to send more troops to Afghanistan will be to shut down the opium production that is currently being protected by NATO forces. The stockpiled opium will then increase in price dramatically, allowing huge profits from the sale of the stockpiled opium. That drug money will then be used to buy US securities and fund our bail outs to the banksters.
The illegal drug trade should not have been able to flourish as it did with the tools provided to fight the war on terror, nor could it flourish without the tax havens which were never shut down despite being used by "terrorists".
If drugs become legalized, competition from an illegal drug trade not involving Anglo-American intelligence agencies would not be permitted, hence the recent push to shut down the tax havens.
As for Big Pharma being against this, thats ludicrous. It is likely Big Pharma will be a big player in any legalized drug industry, as would Big Agribusiness. They are already in cooperation with joint GM projects to grow drugs from genetically modified crops.
As for the Prison Industrial Complex being adversely affected, I guess we will just have to find a new kind of prisoner to fill these prisons. Maybe putting all of us denialists or conspiracy theorists in jail (grin). In fact, plans are for the prison population to help out with maintaining order in military run prison camps should martial law be declared as a result of civil unrest due to the financial crisis.
The world is an interesting place if you connect the dots.
It would be interesting to know if there have been more or less traffic accidents in the Amsterdam area since the cannabis coffeeshops opened. I suspect less, since marijuana is less intoxicating than liquor and with increased availability and less social stigma many people who would otherwise get drunk would get high instead.
Nevertheless the key is "controlled legalization," where each plant or drug is dealt with separately in accordance with its own unique properties. Even adults should not be allowed to purchase powerful psychoactive substances over the counter without some type of licensing to weed out irresponsible use. Timothy Leary once said something to the effect that getting a license to use marijuana should be about as difficult as getting a driver's license, while getting a license to use LSD should be about as difficult as getting a pilot's license...
Basically, though, it should be perfectly legal to experiment with or use drugs of any kind - as long as it is done responsibly, without putting others at risk. That's a part of the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that we should all be entitled to as long as we don't infringe on the equal rights of others to the same.
cc2
Cognitive /'kognitiv/ adj 1 relating to cognition. 2 based on or reducible to empirical knowledge.
Maybe your the one who lacks cognitive skills since your opinion on people who use drugs seems to be far more perceived theory than any actual experience or real observation.
Cognitive therapy, noun, a method of treating psychological disorders that encourages patients to face up to resolve their own distorted ways of thinking about themselves and the WORLD.
I also really think there's a lot of anti-drug radicals out there that could really use your help, LOL.
Peace.
First to Danny... I agree. Its not keeping the drugs from our children. So we catch the guys that are dealing and execute them. Shoot the planes down. You may or may not be aware of whats happening south of the border in Mexico. There is a real live drug war going on, so we end up with a back room somewhere after legalizaton of drugs where they buy the drugs from someone who knows someone, who knows someone. They wont buy the government shit... costs too much. And no Daniel they cant control themselves. They would be hooked for the rest of their lives because it is legal.
For the records, that Dutch thing is not doing so hot in their very permissive society.
http://www.cannabisfanclub.net/2007/06/21/dutch-cannabis-buyers-to-have…
And big brother is going to know who the heads are. You are going to be in a database of drug users. Nice. So you go to get a job and they pull up the legally accessible information and nope, you cant have a job because you use an illegal substance. The EU isnt buying your thoughts either Revere.
And for a guy thats always so damned worried about "public health" lets do this...
http://www.ukcia.org/research/ReviewOfMarijuanaUseAndCancerRisk.pdf
Lea-honey I love you and you know it. Disagree and you know why. Feel free to puff up though. I dont think that there is a thing that its really doing except tamping you off to the point you dont notice so much. No "curative" properties in it.
Hey how about those women who got pregnant from being stoned...? A lot of them will get pregnant using it, and then use it during pregnancy.
http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec22/ch259/ch259a.html
I guess we should just ignore the information. And, you should remember that if we have Obamanation in place... We will get the bills for dealing with post pregnancy learning disabilities, birth defects, lower fetal birthweights and of course... A propensity to use drugs.
Jon S. - Experiment with heroin and tell me after a week of that if you wouldnt kill your mother to get the money out of her purse to get a fix. Seen it happen. I wrote here about it a year ago. Also unless you are prepared to guarantee 100% compliance which you cant then your entire argument doesnt carry a bit of weight. We cant keep the drunks of f the roads now, how about a hundred million people that are stoned at least two or three times a week?
Bad move.
paiwan: As usual you don't know what you're talking about, leave me alone.
cc2: Such a predictable response, "what are you on?" Nothing, would be the truthful and correct answer. But I sure could use an ounce to ease the physical pain I'm experiencing right now.
Not my words:
"What we have here is a failure to communicate."
We, meaning nearly every American politician, authority and citizen, insofar as addressing the problems of drug war. We will always have drugs and will always have problems with drugs but they will be much less severe when we tax, regulate and actually control these so called "controlled substances" for adult use.
We can suppose for another 93 years that we can change the minds of hundreds of millions of users worldwide, tens of millions of growers, traffickers, distributors; continue to feed our terrorist enemies cash cow, fund the paramilitaries in Colombia and the deadly cartels in Mexico, give reason for the violent gangs to exist on our streets, ensure our childrens easy access to drugs or we can legalize drugs for adults. The answer to this question must come from you and be directed to our servants in the legislatures. Silence is far from golden.
I'm against legalization..it would collapse the price of my goods. I am for harsher laws and the execution of offenders as M. Randolph Kruger suggests because it will push the price even further up and thus my profits. Thank you for understanding.
**********************************
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19220500
Cluster Attacks Responsive to Recreational Cannabis and Dronabinol.
Robbins MS, Tarshish S, Solomon S, Grosberg BM.
From The Montefiore Headache Center, Saul R. Korey Department of Neurology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA.
Pharmacological preparations of cannabinoid compounds have a variety of therapeutic uses in medicine, including different pain syndromes, but have not been previously reported as beneficial for cluster headache. We present a patient with cluster headache who was refractory to multiple acute and preventive medications but successfully aborted his attacks with recreational marijuana use; subsequent use of dronabinol provided equally effective pain relief. The beneficial effect may be related to the high concentration of cannabinoid receptors in the hypothalamus, which has been implicated as a site of dysfunction in neuroimaging studies of patients with cluster headache.
-------------------------------------
My husband suffered from cluster headaches for over 20 years. At the age of 40 the cluster headaches usually stop. It was frightening to watch him go into convulsions and watch his body tense up in unbearable pain. It was like he was having a heart attack and the cluster headaches lasted for days.
------------------------------------
Thank you Coalition of Drug Dealers, I got my first chuckle today, much appreciated.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=75
Sergeant Fired After Criticizing "War on Drugs," Now Reinstated
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 13, 2009
SEATTLE, WA -- A Mountlake Terrace police sergeant who was fired after publicly criticizing the "war on drugs" has reached an $812,500 settlement in a lawsuit he filed against the city and police department, among others. Under the settlement, Sergeant Jonathan Wender has been reinstated on the force and is eligible to receive back pay and full retirement benefits.
âIn an open society, people on the front lines of the criminal justice system have an ethical duty to speak out on controversial social and legal issues that affect the public we serve," said Sgt. Wender, a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), a 10,000-strong organization representing police, prosecutors, judges and others who fought on the front lines of the "war on drugs" and who now want to legalize and regulate drugs. "The public has a fundamental right to know which laws and policies are effective, and which ones arenât; and they should expect that their police officers will speak the truth even when it isnât popular or comfortable to do so. I hope that the outcome of this case will help reassure police and other public officials that they can speak freely on controversial topics such as the urgent need to seek better ways to deal with the crisis of drugs that plagues American society.â
Sgt. Wender joined the police force in 1990 after graduating from college and was terminated in 2005. He holds a Pd.D. from Simon Fraser University and is currently a full-time sociology professor at the University of Washington. As part of the settlement, Sgt. Wender is back on the payroll at the Mountlake Terrace Police Department, where he will serve on administrative leave until he retires from the force on November 10, 2010 and can then qualify for his full pension.
"Jonathan Wender's victory is ours, as well. As was his fight," said Norm Stamper, the retired Seattle police chief and LEAP member. "Because of this fine man's courage and perseverance, and his willingness to tell the truth about the 'drug war,' we've all moved closer to putting an end to that war. I believe police officers across the country will be moved by Jonathan's example, and will raise their voices in support of LEAP's goal of ending drug prohibition."
The lawsuit was filed against the Snohomish County Prosecutorâs Office, the Mountlake Terrace Police Department, the City of Mountlake Terrace, the City of Lynnwood, and a handful of individual defendants.
Zogby Poll
If hard drugs such as heroin or cocaine were legalized would you be likely to use them?
99% SAY "NO"
----------------------------
I'm done, for now, thanks for the opportunity.
And the cost of the 1% or the ones that say no and then do that get hooked? Want to conduct an experiment? Its one I'll pass on for sure.
Heroin... the new date rape drug. Guaranteed to put your lights out permanently. Instead of fighting it as a law enforcement problem, we should fight it with no holds barred. But we wont because this game is starting to come to an end. Used to be that you wouldnt touch the stuff and with heroin and the coke thats laced with it, its a two hit addiction.
As for drug coalition.... right and then no one will be able to afford them. Lets face it, if you knew you were going to die if you sold drugs to a kid, would you? Sure you would and you wouldnt think twice about it. Then when you are caught I would be the first one to get a rope. But thats okay when the wheels come off the cart as they are now all sorts of lamebrained ideas come into peoples heads. Heavily regulated? How about a quick trial and a quick execution by hanging or firing squad. You know, the Muslims got this one down pat. Execution for selling. Run out of dope dealers fast.
I find it rather alarming when anyone advocates death as a solution to anything. The death penalty isn't something you fling around willy-nilly. Especially when you're essentially recommending killing anyone who passes a beer to a 20 year old for drug dealing.
Big difference in beer and drugs Erin... Normally you would have to drink for quite some time to be addicted. Generally 3 hits is all you need on heroin or coke.
You might find it alarming. I find it more alarming that a doctor is advocating that drugs should be legalized..
No way to regulate it. You'll have your bona fide US government issued shit, limited in its punch (or not) and then you have the street where they jack the loads from trucks and then sell it in the hood by the handfuls for less than Unkle Samuel. When they get picked up, you and I foot the bill. We foot the bill now in an ineffective war on drugs as well. Take the dopers and use them for target practice out in the Gulf.They are the lowest life that there is on this planet. What you want the gubbermint to be in charge of the dope too?
You think this will create wealth for the country? Who is going to support those families when mommy and daddy are all cranked out and wont go to work? Alarming... Jesus H. Christ.
I find it terribly alarming that anyone is touting legalization of drugs with or without a war on it. Revere wants more bang for his bucks it would appear.... So do I. I love the smell of napalm in Columbia in the morning...It smells like cooking meat. We could end the war in a week if we wanted and we wouldnt even have to invade the country. Stand a carrier group out off the coast and napalm everything thats being cultivated including those rose bush fields because they are growing poppies now underneath them, but you dont know that. To me its a direct threat to the security of the US.
And above all shoot the drug planes down. They dont heave to then you just take a wing off. The sharks in the central Gulf forgive nothing.
Heavily regulated means that the government will tax, spend and then tax some more on the sin taxes. This stuff is filth and anyone who uses it is dumber than a box of rocks. But go ahead and use it, your IQ will be rated starting at the rocks and anything past that is gravy. Kill a drug dealer? Hell yes. Its a detail I would personally take charge of without the single second of thought. But they got rights, just like the guys who went back to Iraq from Gitmo and killed US soldiers. No longer a threat was the statement.
A country that doesnt keep its stuff together is doomed to fall apart and if you are not up on current events, its pretty well falling apart at the seams. We want them at work and not on the government dole. Whats next? A drug allowance with their welfare checks?
"I agree with you 100% that only unhappy people become drug addicts, but⦠"
"â¦that drug users need treatment not jail."
The issue of drug addiction is such a complicated public matter which has involved with personal psychological problems and organized crime behind the scene in distributing the drugs.
The personal psychological battle will never end once human beings exist; nevertheless, the organized crime behind the drug dealing and related huge administration cost could be solved by legalization process under public scrutiny.
I read that the stance of Economist is clear to point the alternative solution will be more effective than the illegal status quo for the time being. To exaggerate this as a personal advocating is a rude personal attack and irrational debate; it confuses the focal point.
As how the problem of addiction especially with drugs could be solved is a new frontier of public health. There is no simple answer to it; the good answer of counseling to A may not be good for B. But definitely the psychological counseling will be playing very important role in the solution.
I have a close friends-an English couple just went back to England and told me that they will participate a 3-6 months smoking quitting program. Their ages are around 65.
See how AA (Anonymous Alcoholic) Association operates to help supporting alcoholic abusers. There is no such prescription from a physician can cure your addiction right away- only by a long process of mental healing process.
It is good that we are (public) health caring people.
Excellent article from the Economist. It's time to end the out-of-control criminal black-market and demand regulated sale of psychoactive drugs. This would include accurate labeling of ingredients, monitoring of production facilities as for other pharmaceuticals, warnings and safety information for consumers, age-restrictions and other restrictions, as with alcohol or tobacco.
For an eye-opening historical look at this question, see The Consumers Union Report - Licit and Illicit Drugs, by Edward M. Brecher and the Editors of Consumer Reports Magazine, 1972.
Some quotes from their recommendations, from 37 years ago:
Interesting to see what will happen at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), Vienna 11-20 March 2009. Live info from this event will be posted at CNDblog.org
30 years (more or less) ago, Lenny Bruce wrote that within a generation, pot would be legal because all the law students he knew smoked it. He's running a little behind, but maybe it is because he died. (and, yeah, I know it was of an overdose.)
Marijuana will be found to have similar health risks to tobacco once we have valid research data. Protecting pulmonary volume is a critical public health care objective.
So for all of those who seek nirvana in pot -- think about what it will be like to be sucking on an O2 canister for the last 10 to 20% of your life.
When I read comments like the ones above I wonder how much tax revenue from marijuana has been lost over the last forty years ? In an era of crushing deficits failing to milk a cash cow could be considered impeachable (negligence, nonfeasance, possibly even fraud).
Also, the way marijuana was made illegal blocked the cultivation of industrial hemp (useless for getting high). Hemp can be used for not only rope but also paper, clothing, etc.
http://www.hemphasis.net/
http://www.rawganique.com/HempPaperProducts.htm
http://www.greenfieldpaper.com/
http://www.hempstores.com/
"As for drug coalition.... right and then no one will be able to afford them."
You cannot buy the repression machine necessary to push the supply that far down and the prices that far up but I do "appreciate" your efforts. MWAHAHAHAHAHA!
"Lets face it, if you knew you were going to die if you sold drugs to a kid, would you?"
Am I dead? Or just Undead, MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
"Sure you would and you wouldnt think twice about it. Then when you are caught I would be the first one to get a rope."
You'll catch someone else...possibly an innocent black or hispanic schmuck. MWAHAHAHAHAHA!
"But thats okay when the wheels come off the cart as they are now all sorts of lamebrained ideas come into peoples heads."
What?
"Heavily regulated? How about a quick trial and a quick execution by hanging or firing squad."
That's how many innocent schmucks like you get hung..MWAHAHAHAHAHA!
"You know, the Muslims got this one down pat. Execution for selling. Run out of dope dealers fast."
They are running out of dope dealers in Afghanistan? Naaah! Malaysia? Nope, not either. Or is it Morrocco? Hardly! MWAHAHAHAHAHA!
"No way to regulate it."
You go girl! I'm lovin' it (you)!
"Take the dopers and use them for target practice out in the Gulf. They are the lowest life that there is on this planet."
That's funny we do that with innocent bystanders and the like but never our clients and we don't bother going to the gulf for that sport either. haha Get it? Golf...Sport? MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
"We could end the war in a week if we wanted and we wouldnt even have to invade the country. Stand a carrier group out off the coast and napalm everything thats being cultivated including those rose bush fields because they are growing poppies now underneath them, but you dont know that."
I've seen that crafty carrier. Issa piece of shit but it does kill off competition so Hugs and kisses from all of us at the coalition! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Keep up the good work, djou da MANG!
CCD....I think you prove my point exactly.
Ron Paul Debates Stephen Baldwin About Marijuana Legalization On Larry King Live
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIoUPvvcauQ
******************************
Lea, Ron Paul while he has a lot of good ideas this isnt one of them. The reason it was done in 1937 (my mom was a toker then) was that the kids were going to school stoned, accidents on the increase that kind of thing. My grandfather found her too stoned to go to school one morning and asked what she had been doing... Sounded like the above arguments from Paul. It wasnt illegal then, but they criminalized it for a reason. So where to draw the line on drugs. Just because the assertion is big pharma would lose out? No, your car insurance alone will triple if its permitted and perhaps not available for most if this and other drugs are legalized. Its a liability thing, a health thing and a legal thing.
Some people swear by it, but who will bear the responsibility of its use? Certainly not the users. Its the numbers that will come back in from legalizing most narcotics and pot. They will make a lot of money as taxes and then put them right back out there for drug clinics. Stoner stimulus package. Besides, they do it enough now that it might as well be legalized. The idea is that we should tax and control it... Bootleg drugs would be flying in even MORE than they are now.