Should the US legalize drugs?

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Just look at the stats, and hang around people who use drugs (for all sorts of reasons). This is another example of the government sticking its nose where it does not belong. And it makes it worse. The US may be addicted to pleasing themselves, and making it illegal won't stop it.

In addition, even though alcohol is my current drug of choice, that doesn't mean I should restrict another individual's choice in the matter.

Again, the drug war only hurts the situation. Milton Friedman (who knew something about markets) stated: "Whose interests are served by the drug war? The U.S. government enforces a drug cartel. The major beneficiaries from drug prohibition are the drug lords, who can maintain a cartel that they would be unable to maintain without current government policy." Whether you support or are against drug use, one has to recognize that the "drug war" must go.

You're not going to get an argument from me about big government!

Alcohol is my only drug of choice, in moderation (and safely) of course.

As far as drug prohibition, I fail to see how legalization of pot, and stopping the drug wars would do much against coke, speed, and heroin. Unless you suggest that we legalize those too, or simply not enforce the laws (see immigration). That would be a tough sell to the vast majority of Americans, IMO.
Remember, just because a policy isn't working (see immigration), doesn't mean we should just give in. Perhaps if we focused on punishment, instead of rehabiliation, the casual user would be far less inclined to use. Who knows.

 

[ShivaIrish]

As far as drug prohibition, I fail to see how legalization of pot, and stopping the drug wars would do much against coke, speed, and heroin. Unless you suggest that we legalize those too, or simply not enforce the laws (see immigration). That would be a tough sell to the vast majority of Americans, IMO.
Remember, just because a policy isn't working (see immigration), doesn't mean we should just give in. Perhaps if we focused on punishment, instead of rehabiliation, the casual user would be far less inclined to use. Who knows.

Drug prohibition: again, the problem is the drug war does not really stop the use of drugs. It is a failure--drug use is going up in America. It may be a tough sell to many people, for probably, a number of reasons. They've been indoctrinated into the drug war is one reason. They may want to feel like we're "doing" something.

About punishment/rehabilitation: Read that article I posted earlier, the emphasis right now is strongly on punishment vs. rehabilitation--which costs tax payers more money. That's why so mant inmates are non-violent drug offenders. My guess is the data is out that there that supports the notion that the cost of imprisonment is less than rehabilitation. Focusing on punishment is part of the problem, and we should generally all be for reducing the amount of prison inmates. I guess if you want the prison industry to do well you might not want that to happen, though.

If you support the drug war, Stoney, on this case, you're supporting bigger government. You can't say that you're for smaller government, and then want all programs and funding to remain. However, of all the programs that need to go, this one is up there because 1)it costs a lot, 2)it is not effective, 3)it infringes on people's personal freedoms, 4)it seems to actually support violence and other law-breaking related to the drug trade.

Why not spend that money on better/more effective things, or spend less in the first place? (I would support a combination of those)

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Education and responsible parenting are still applicable for non-utopians. Making drugs illegal certainly is not, nor will it, make a significant positive effect on drug use. It makes it worse. If you take some of the money and help fund public schools k-12 better, I would say that would help. Would it be perfect? No, but to err is human, so you'll not have it perfect on earth. But it can be helped.

You actually don't even have to increase education funding to help the drug problem. Just stop the drug war, and use the money to decrease the deficit. That would still be better.

You're right. Forgive me for not doing a better job of separating the utopia statement & the need for resposnible parenting. I didn't intend to imply that good parenting only happened in utopia...that is nonsense. Anyway, we agree.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Drug prohibition: again, the problem is the drug war does not really stop the use of drugs. It is a failure--drug use is going up in America. It may be a tough sell to many people, for probably, a number of reasons. They've been indoctrinated into the drug war is one reason. They may want to feel like we're "doing" something.

About punishment/rehabilitation: Read that article I posted earlier, the emphasis right now is strongly on punishment vs. rehabilitation--which costs tax payers more money. That's why so mant inmates are non-violent drug offenders. My guess is the data is out that there that supports the notion that the cost of imprisonment is less than rehabilitation. Focusing on punishment is part of the problem, and we should generally all be for reducing the amount of prison inmates. I guess if you want the prison industry to do well you might not want that to happen, though.

If you support the drug war, Stoney, on this case, you're supporting bigger government. You can't say that you're for smaller government, and then want all programs and funding to remain. However, of all the programs that need to go, this one is up there because 1)it costs a lot, 2)it is not effective, 3)it infringes on people's personal freedoms, 4)it seems to actually support violence and other law-breaking related to the drug trade.

Why not spend that money on better/more effective things, or spend less in the first place? (I would support a combination of those)

In my state, the judge can determine the need for a criminal, such as a first time drug offender, to be in prison or a minimum security facility that is closer to your typical jail. We jokingly refer to it as "adult time-out" which is a pretty good description of it.

It's usually reserved for those folks who are sentenced to short stints (14 mos or less, I believe) and have committed non-violent crimes (usually drug use). The judge can look at the person's rap sheet & if it's not habitual he/she can send them here.

If not, the city's logic is that by throwing these cats into general population w/ true hardened criminals, they will then become true hardened criminals. It's hard to equate getting popped w/ a bag of weed to pediphilia or murder, so it seems to be a decent alternative to the petty crooks.

 

[grantphilly]

If drugs were legal just think about the room that would be freed up in our jails and prisons. I'm not saying they should be legal but it shure would be cheaper on the tax payers of the nation. I'd like to quote a song titled Off-beat Bareass by 311, "The war on drugs may be well intended but it falls F%#&in flat when you start to mention an over crowded prison where a rapist gets parolled to make room for a dude who has sold a pound of weed to me thats a crime heres to good people doing time yall" Maybe some of that cash could go to our school systems, god knows thats were it needs to be!

 

[IRISHDODGER]

If drugs were legal just think about the room that would be freed up in our jails and prisons. I'm not saying they should be legal but it shure would be cheaper on the tax payers of the nation. I'd like to quote a song titled Off-beat Bareass by 311, "The war on drugs may be well intended but it falls F%#&in flat when you start to mention an over crowded prison where a rapist gets parolled to make room for a dude who has sold a pound of weed to me thats a crime heres to good people doing time yall" Maybe some of that cash could go to our school systems, god knows thats were it needs to be!

Yup, I don't think parole boards nor the public would prefer a rapist on the streets over a pothead. The pedophile is even a worse thought. In most cases, the parole boards realize they'll catch a helluva lot more crap if a rapist, or God forbid, a pedophile, recurs. However, if a pothead or a dealer gets busted after being released, no one bats an eye b/c it's expected & isn't perceived as affecting the general public as much.

 

[lattedatte]

wow am I on IrishEnvy? Great job by the last three posters offering rational thoughts to legalizing pot. I agree with nearly all your statements.

 

[tdnd81]

I couldn't vote, I don't think drugs should be legal just Pot. Just go off yourself or friends, fire back about 20 brews and a couple of shots? Or a few bong hits of some cronic. now i wouldn't recommend doing it but i would rather be on the road with the guy who smoked. Or how many girls get raped after a dude smokes? As apposed to the guy who is drunk and blacked out. The guy who smoked just might take the last piece of pizza. The guy who is drunk might pound you're head in with a beer bottle, if you look at his girl wrong. That said is it noon yet?

 

[ShivaIrish]

You're right. Forgive me for not doing a better job of separating the utopia statement & the need for resposnible parenting. I didn't intend to imply that good parenting only happened in utopia...that is nonsense. Anyway, we agree.

no prob. Not everytime that we agree on something Dodger.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

If drugs were legal just think about the room that would be freed up in our jails and prisons. I'm not saying they should be legal but it shure would be cheaper on the tax payers of the nation. I'd like to quote a song titled Off-beat Bareass by 311, "The war on drugs may be well intended but it falls F%#&in flat when you start to mention an over crowded prison where a rapist gets parolled to make room for a dude who has sold a pound of weed to me thats a crime heres to good people doing time yall" Maybe some of that cash could go to our school systems, god knows thats were it needs to be!

I respect your opinion, but is the US only supposed to do things if they work perfectly? How is our economy supposed to function if all the workers are high. How are parents supposed to do their job if they are high. How are kids supposed to get an education if they are high. BTW...IMO, schools don't need any more money, they just got a record amount thanks to Bush and congress. Grades don't improve because of money, it is about accountability...with parents, students, and teachers.

 

[ShivaIrish]

I respect your opinion, but is the US only supposed to do things if they work perfectly? How is our economy supposed to function if all the workers are high. How are parents supposed to do their job if they are high. How are kids supposed to get an education if they are high. BTW...IMO, schools don't need any more money, they just got a record amount thanks to Bush and congress. Grades don't improve because of money, it is about accountability...with parents, students, and teachers.

Stoney, can you provide a link about the budget spending in regards to education?

In rebuttal of your contestation that everybody will be high if drugs are legalized---well, making the illegal doesn't really stop that. That's one of the big points I keep harping on. The war on drugs is failing, in part, because its not really stopping too many people, if any at all, from doing drugs. However, you probably can find evidence that it might have a slightly opposite effect.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

No. But it was Kennedy working with Bush to increase the budget recently (might have last year).

Dude, that's like saying we should open the borders because we can't keep the illegals out. That's no answer. It's either right or its wrong. Failure in enforcement is not a justification for just 'giving up'. I just have a hard time believing that the government giving its blessing for having everyone high all the time is a good thing. Hell, everyone would drive like 20 miles on the freeway, traffic jams would ensue, and burn too much fuel.

 

[ShivaIrish]

No. But it was Kennedy working with Bush to increase the budget recently (might have last year).

Dude, that's like saying we should open the borders because we can't keep the illegals out. That's no answer. It's either right or its wrong. Failure in enforcement is not a justification for just 'giving up'. I just have a hard time believing that the government giving its blessing for having everyone high all the time is a good thing. Hell, everyone would drive like 20 miles on the freeway, traffic jams would ensue, and burn too much fuel.

Making something legal (or should I say, make it un-illegal) is not giving something a blessing. Adultery does not have the blessing, but it is not illegal. The fact is that drugs should not be illegal in the first place, because it enfringes on people's individual rights--especially since many people have demonstrated that they can use drugs that are illegal, responsibly. The government is not supposed to be the "morality-police." Leave that to the Taliban and others. Drugs are not something you resist "on principle." And so if the thing you are trying to prevent is not being prevented with current policy, and instead is actually made worse off, then it's time to do something different. Why not tax it, and make a profit from it's sale? We, the tax payers, should not be forced to spend billiions every year, just because some people have "principles" against drugs. I say smaller government on this issue is the answer.

 

[grantphilly]

I respect your opinion, but is the US only supposed to do things if they work perfectly? How is our economy supposed to function if all the workers are high. How are parents supposed to do their job if they are high. How are kids supposed to get an education if they are high. BTW...IMO, schools don't need any more money, they just got a record amount thanks to Bush and congress. Grades don't improve because of money, it is about accountability...with parents, students, and teachers.

I not trying to prmote the legalization of any substance and if I was I would olny pull for the sweet mary jane. And obvioulsy nothing works perfectly and if you were to legalize MJ you would have to put an age limit on the useage. I don't know if you have ever burnt any cheba before but its a pretty swell time and your probualy more likely to fuck something up if you are drunk. I agree on the accountability part of parents, teachers, and students but some of these rual schools don't have their priorities strait and you are right money won't make them smarter, but anything is good in moderation right?

 

[grantphilly]

No. But it was Kennedy working with Bush to increase the budget recently (might have last year).

Dude, that's like saying we should open the borders because we can't keep the illegals out. That's no answer. It's either right or its wrong. Failure in enforcement is not a justification for just 'giving up'. I just have a hard time believing that the government giving its blessing for having everyone high all the time is a good thing. Hell, everyone would drive like 20 miles on the freeway, traffic jams would ensue, and burn too much fuel.

Be vocal and think local, just buy your weed from some good ol' boy near where you are from instead of traffacking them across state and country and then there will be no need for cars and we can all live in self sustaining hippie communities:zthinking

 

[Sweeney6083]

yes but tax the shit out of them.

 

[KAPLAN]

Drugs are bad...mmmmkaaaayyy

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Making something legal (or should I say, make it un-illegal) is not giving something a blessing. Adultery does not have the blessing, but it is not illegal. The fact is that drugs should not be illegal in the first place, because it enfringes on people's individual rights--especially since many people have demonstrated that they can use drugs that are illegal, responsibly. The government is not supposed to be the "morality-police." Leave that to the Taliban and others. Drugs are not something you resist "on principle." And so if the thing you are trying to prevent is not being prevented with current policy, and instead is actually made worse off, then it's time to do something different. Why not tax it, and make a profit from it's sale? We, the tax payers, should not be forced to spend billiions every year, just because some people have "principles" against drugs. I say smaller government on this issue is the answer.

I agree with you about smaller government.