I have often thought about this - there are very few places on the world where hard drugs are legalized. Additionally experimentation in places like Switzerland, Vancouver and Austrailia in reguurds to Herion has been a disaster to the local community. Switzerland actually banned herion outright again.

I think that the legalization of softer drugs might be something the US should try, although the likely hood of that happening in the next ten years in my mind is ZERO.

actually hard drugs is the target... Heroin was perscribed legally at doctor's offices in britain to addicts up until the 70's and the incedence of addition and addict-crime was very very low compared to today. Criminalization has failed completely... and really the USA is a disaster in this regard... Holland is a good example, as addiction rates are much lower than in the USA... That is why spain just legallized all drugs.. wisely... and switzerland now legallized cannabis.

The moral argument is bogus as the 2 legal drugs (tobacco and alcohol) are far more dangerous than the illegal ones, and it has proven by the prohibition era, that criminalizing supply is really a public subsidy to organized crime.

Legalisation is the ONLY answer to the war on drugs but also the only answer that few politicians have the courage for. It might happen one day but not in my lifetime, unless I become prime minister

I like the idea. Fortunately, it is quietly, and slowly, being implemented in Canada. I believe we're already looking at new laws against things like drugged driving (as opposed to drunk driving) so hopefully all drugs will be controlled as alcohol currently is.

In Oslo in Norway, there are no places herion addicts may use herion with professional help. In Frankfurt, Germany, such places exist. Oslo is the city in Europe with most overdose deaths, Frankfurt is on the bottom of the league.

Deaths come from the risks, the risks come from the inflated value of product which in turn is a result of the product being illegal and waged against by enforcement.

I go along with your comment on the tax revenues. It would seem like a great way to net the government some much needed working money for ral programs such as rehab for addicts but also keeping our elderly in homes, if they choose, without the needed to deplete their assets before being allowed in such a place.

Chairman Mao Tsetung used the socialist method to solve the Drug problem! The Drug Addicts were Shot!

People have a 'right' to use drugs, but do not expect others to shoulder the responsiblity for the outcome. Maybe the Dealers could sell insurance for this purpose?

People die from drinking alcohol, people die from cigarettes, people die from eating too much. Yet all these vices are legal. Let everyone who wants pump themselves full of anything have the freedom to do it. As long as it only hurts the conscious user. Then tax those vices. These vices will still be cheaper than when they are illegal.

Once you legalize drugs the door will open to legalizing alcohol and tobacco :) Legalizing anc controlling drugs will reduce crime, prevent a lot of contagious diseases passed by needles and could be a taxed product. TYhankfully Canadian politicians are easing the so called crime of pot smoking...when asked if they smoked pot one politician int he cabinet said "I never exhaled, another said..I have never smoked marijuana ...for emdical reasons..." great stuff

I absolutely disagree with the "War on Drugs" policy, but I think legalization is a dangerous road to follow. The costliest abused drug in terms of public health is nicotine, in legally available cigarrettes. Legalizing hard drugs (e.g., heroin, cocaine) is not a solution to the problem of addiction -- we do not yet know any solutions or have any effective treatments for any addiction.Decriminalization of currently illegal drugs may be beneficial -- lowering or abolishing penalties for users, while focusing law enforcement energies on dealers can help with the legal/incarceration problems; in addition, creating a policy of "Harm Minimization" rather than an outright ban can help with some of the health issues, for example, we need to encourage addicts to seek resources such as clean injection kits without fear of being arrested.

And to respond to Mach5des, I think you should look more closely at the policies in Switzerland and Australia before declaring them failures. The experimental "Injecting Room" in Sydney, Australia has been a success, despite the politics. The Kings Cross area was a mess of dealers, addicts, and used needles on the street before the injecting room was put in there. The room does not provide drugs, but does allow for a safe place to take the drug, clean injection kits, medical support, and information about getting clean. Most importantly, it helps prevent needles from ending up on the street.

The only way that I, as a tax-paying citizen, would vote for the legalization of drugs is if they repeal government funding for Medicare/Medicaid. If the government's going to let anybody (of legal age) use substances that do irreversible damage to the human body (and don't even think about claiming they don't), I'm not going to pay when those same drug-addled sub-humans do something retarded to themselves and need major surgery and/or replacement organs.

I'm with you 100% on the need to decriminalize. But it is not a silver bullet with no down sides. Although Holland's per capita drug addicted population is smaller than in the USA, drug addiction skyrocketed after they made drugs legal, then tapered off some. The typical Dutch train station and urban park is loaded with complete burnouts.

Additionally, for all the money saved in not locking up addicts and sellers, we will spend wild sums of money on counseling, rehab, clinics, etc. I agree that is money better spent, but it's still a massive expenditure by the state. Also, if we make drugs fully "legal", then the state has no recourse to order people into rehab, etc. So, where does the dysfunctional addict go to get drugs when he can't afford legal ones? Rob and steal as they do now. I'm voting neutral on this one.

I do not do drugs, yet believe that the War on Drugs is a colossal waste of tax dollars. This money could be better spent on investigating why people do drugs. These might include poverty, boredom, insecurity, frustration and rebellion. Once we have identified some of the reasons, then we could spend some of the money to try to address the causes of the usage, thereby reducing peoples addictions.

I believe that legalizing drug use would reduce their costs, reduce almost all associated crime, lower prison costs and populations, and reduce use among those that do it merely to rebel against the system.

if drugs are legal, how will all the crack heads afford to buy? will they get steady jobs and contribute to society? or will they continue to commit crime to feed their habit? the legalisation argument seems to overlook the fact that users will not be able to afford them and will still cause major societal problems.

All arguments for ending the so-called war-on-drugs, economic, social, medical have all been neatly explained repeatedly in reputable publications such as the London-based Economist and, doubtless, many other. Let's finish this truely massive nonsense once and for all.But then American politicians are unable to get through their day without waging some war on something somewhere, it seems. Now there is a hard habit to kick.....

It seems to me that the War on Drugs is causing or contributing to the very problems it is trying to fight. The result of criminialization is an atmoshere of secrecy that results in the general population and government decision-makers having poor information about the drugs and their dangers. Likewise, as others have mentioned on this site, drug laws result in expensive drugs of uncertain origin and purity. Meanwhile, few speak openly about the techniques of safe recreational drug use and our children are left to experiment in a vacuum of information. The drug laws themselves make the situation worse, not better, amounting to a tremendous waste of people's taxes.

For a more details on my perspective: betterdifferent.com/drugs

Nate

If you never change anything everything will go on just like it is now. So now we have two million prisoners. What will we do in five years? Have 5 million prisoners and say to each other, "see how great this system works!" Privatize all jails give guards options and sit back and watch half the country get locked up because they used a plant without the pharmaceutical industrys or the governements permission.

What about the pharamaceutical industry, anybody ask how much money the drug company made off Rush Limbaughs addiction to a prescription medicine. This drug oxycotin must be the industrys wet dream. You need like exponetialy more of the drug after you have abused it a little and I guess it is unbelievably addictive with horrible withdrawel.

Also is it a good idea to be told all day long by your tv to take a drug for every ailment imaginable. Basically they continuously say prescription drugs are wonderful for society, are they?

Lastly what about the antidepresents. I am starting to think half the country is on these things. I know at least 5 people taking these things, and most dont even know what they are. Do we all have mental problems? Read the list that these drugs claim to cure, everything from cleptomania to depression and all thats in between. How many people do you know on antidepressants?

I think that legalizing drugs is a good idea and would be helpful in stopping addictions. although it may not help current drug users quit, legalizing drugs will make them less tempting to teens who want an outlet for rebellion. If something is legal, it will loose much of its appeal to people who are only interested in going against society.

This is a very difficult question because, like abortion, it concerns the strength of a persons character. Since drugs are illegal, right or wrong, the person who does the drug, or sells and buys drugs, is by definition, a CRIMINAL. This means they are breaking the law meant to protect our society, with no regard to our safety.

What kind of person are you? Do you follow the law, any law because it is legislation that was voted on by the majority and became: THE LAW? -Or are you the kind of person who only follows laws that you personally agree with? Then you are a criminal, too, and if caught, you will go to jail. Do you think we should all accept the kind of chaos we would have if everyone decided what laws we can choose to ignore?

Also, if drugs become legal, what happens to the enormous population of drug related criminals in jail right now? We would be forced to release them all. Is society really ready to say we made a mistake, sorry, go ahead and induce yourself into a vegitative state? Where will they all live? What jobs will they take? Would you like them living and working near you? Your mom? Your kids?

Right now, the people using illegal drugs do not affect me because they are either very good at secretly getting away with it, or they are dying from dirty needles and overdose or they are in prison. When you legalize drugs, they will move next door, date your sister and drive our taxis and busses and perhaps become our doctors and lawyers.

Since I follow all laws, I think I prefer to have criminals far away from me. Criminals in jail and dying is better for me in the long run.

Licencing is the best solution. It focuses responsibility on the user and removes the criminal element. It's the happy medium between legalization and prohibition.

But HOW?

I can't agree with your goal more emphatically. So much so, in fact, that I gave Change the Climate my credit card and let them deduct a donation from me every friggin month.

What we really need here is new ideas on how we can bring this badly-needed change about. Right now, for any elected official to go near this would be political suicide. He or she would be torn apart -- as someone who won't stand strong to Protect Our Children!!

We have to make it politically feasible somehow. Let's hear ideas on that. (If I think of one, I'll post it...)

I don't think this is so black and white as to be called a "war"; it's more of a struggle. Legalizing all drugs will essentially turn our governments into the drug lords, to whom we pay taxes, whether we do drugs or not. Would this be any better than our tax money being wasted on a war that can't be won?

I think progress has to be done on a personal level. If you know someone with a drug problem, do all you can to get them clean. Maybe it's not so easy, but if you eliminate the need for drugs, the dealers go out of business. Addicts need to be helped, not looked down on and thrown in prison.

I don't think legalisiing will work. I personally have not against it, but we have to realise that a law changes behavior.so if the law says it's ok to smoke marijuana and usecocaine more people will do it. Even if you take into accountthe fact that some people will stop using because it's not against the law anymore.at the end we will have more people addictedand more health problems than now.also, if the US legalizes but notother countries, all drug lords will come to the US, sincehere they won't be able to be persecuted.

so there are problems... I don't know if it will betteror not.

I don't think I can add to all the pros for ending the War on Drugs that have already been stated. But I read someone say that as a tax-paying citizen they would only be for it if they repealed funding for Medicaid and Medicare because they don't want to pay for the major surgeries that these "drug-addled sub-humans" will need. Considering that the overwhelming majority of people on these programs are over the age of 70, I do not follow this logic. Also, the Byzantine processes one must complete in order to be on these programs actually disuade most indigent people from joining, if they even know they are eligible. And the concensus in public health systems is that most poor drug-abusers have mental and physical ailments that were there before the abuse, which they self-medicate with elicit drugs or alcohol, practically the only medication available to them. Buying $20 worth of crack is much cheaper than paying $70 for a doctor's visit and another 50-200 dollars for the prescription. However, if you choose to go to a free clinic, it is cheaper but your first visit is scheduled three months from now, and you have to spend a whole day there to see a doctor for 3 minutes who is in a hurry to get you out because of their massive case loads. Not the best health care. Where as you could buy some heroin today and get to work tomorrow. So to bring the tiny minority of people in the US who are drug-abusers into the system of medicaid and medicare where they could be treated for their abuse and underlying ailments would be most logical. Another option is to give hunting licences to the rich so they can kill the "subhumans".

The same debate was held over alcohol and, more recently, over gambling. Both have been largely legalized. And taxed, or otherwise used as a source of government revenue. The next candidate for this treatment is probably marijuana. It may take a generation, of course. In the past, younger people were not convinced of the need to protect people from the ravages of alcohol and gambling. Now younger beople are not convinced that people need protecting from marijuana. When the politicians start figuring out what income they could get from legalized "medical" marijuana, the will sell the remaining (elderly) public on the idea by proposing to devote the revenues to medicare/medicaid.

I discussed this before with a friend who is a detective. At first he was dead against it, later on he was more pensive in his remarks. There are interesting pros and cons here. IMHO the prime objective of decriminalisation is crime reduction. The undesirable side effect of decriminalisation is stated to be increased drug use, maybe as much as doubling the number of addicts. Here is a question: which is worse - more addicts or more crime? Say if the money you paid (the State) for drugs was small, then what would be the point of buying/selling it on the black market? What other mechanisms would there be at the disposal of society to limit the harm done to the lives of the addicts? If anyone must suffer, I think I would prefer "the polluter pays" principle to be applied to individuals who mess themselves up. We don’t like people wrecking their lives with cigarettes or alcohol, and we act in a limited fashion in proportion with individual freedom and dignity, to limit access to these harmful legal substances. So it should be with drugs, there would need to be restrictions placed on the individual so that he would obey these restrictions, yet at the same time the restrictions would be carefully judged to make sure there would be little or no profit to be made from illicit supply. So less crime, and more freedom from criminal gang activity. What would be the unintended consequences? Who know what the criminal mind might cook up to shore up falling drug income.

Finally the DEA http://www.dea.gov/ongoing/legalization.htmlhave a section of their website dedicated to considering this question, but I found it lacking in depth. They may be worried about their jobs, are they cynical or am I?

Did you know...

-That in the 5000 years marijuana has been around, there has never been a reported death or overdose contributed to marijuana as the sole cause of death, but police officers and drug agents die every year trying to enforce the "Drug War"

-That marijuana is only a PSYCHOLOGICAL addiction, which is a big difference than the harder, PHYSICALLY addicting drugs that are outlawed in the United States

-Other PHYSICALLY addicting drugs include nicotine, caffeine and alcohol

-It has been proven that people die from cigarettes (still legal) and people also can drink themselves to death with alcohol (still legal)

-Even if someone could overdose on marijuana they would die from smoke inhalation before the drug killed them

-In a comparison study of teens in Amsterdam (decriminalized) and London ("Drug War" laws still in place) the teens in London were three times more likely to use marijuana

Are the laws against marijuana doing more harm than good?

(Additional good reading... Reefer Madness by Eric Schlosser)

If hard narcotics and hallucinogenics were legalized, they could be controlled by governments. If they were licensed, they could be taxed. Tax revenue could pay for what law enforcement is necessary.

Not going to happen.

Great post & dialogue! Another benefit would be that populations that grow opium,cacao and marijuana would not find it more profitable than growing food for their people and/or other crops that could be sold profitably. Right now the drugs being illegal drives the price so high that the most desperate people will automatically be attracted to growing that crop.

Alot of the objections to this change involve aversion to the initial repercusions of decriminalization or legalization of drugs, but with Societies as with people, healing often isn't comfortable at first, or pretty. Sometimes it looks worse first. But, when you're doing the right thing-- allowing people to be responsible for themselves, eliminating an environment in which organized crime flourishes, stopping wasteful spending on prosecution, prison building, etc. -- society will be able to heal itself, just as a body heals itself when a thorn is pulled out of it. It may look bruised, swollen and fill with puss for awhile but it is alot better than leaving the thorn in until blood poisoning sets in.

A society full of legal tweakers would be a horrible thing.A society full of potheads... at least the fast food industry would profit!

The drug war is perhaps the most destructive government policy in the USA; it was the original "eternal war" and contributes to the problem of terrorism as drug money funds terrorists and destabilizes countries like Colombia and Afghanistan.

http://stopthedrugwar.comhttp://www.prohibitioncosts.org/

Morally I can't agree that drugs should be legalized, however I recognize the hypocrisy that alcohol and tobacco are legal. To me, those items should be illegal as well, but Prohibition proved how ineffective that was.

Firstly Holland as an example is interesting. Most of the RISE in abuse came as drug addits across europe decended on Amsterdam looking at the city as a drugs Utopia. This constitutes a rise in the drug user population.

Is nobody here considering the cost of the War on Drugs. The US and it's allies can surely no longer be fighting the orginal 'Drug Barons' all of these guys died of old age fourty years ago!

there are a whole new lot now and the situation is endless. Whay not destroy the poppy field in Afganistan? It takes a lot of land to supply the west with Heroin. Every nation in the world knows EXACTLY where ALL of the stuff is growing, so why isn't it being destroyed or immediate and total import and export sanctions placed on the producing countries. This would obviously initiate an immediate rise in famine and death in the countries concerned whilst their leaders suffered little (that's sanctions for ya). But why should we all be bothered so long as it works.

Also there are fewer deaths from Heroin overdosing in the US than there are deaths from plastic wrapping or household electrical accidents or even food poisoning. I don't see billions spent by Government fighting the dangers of poorly cooked oysters! Then again Oyter eaters don't hold up a liquer store to get their next meal!

We do have the technology available now to bomb the poppy and cocoa plantations with spores of similar modified plants which are much more virilent and adapted better to the envoironment. They would basically grow and take over the plantation forcing the poppy and cocoa plants into extiction locally and have no drug related resale value! Plus they would die out after X generations.

you make it hard for me to take a stand on this.

Stop penalizing drug users? Yes, addicts should be considered patients rather than criminals.

Legalize all drugs? HELL NO. Inject a speedball and then say that you can choose.

Hmmm.... Legalising drugs is okay if EVERY country does it.... if only one opts for it then that nation like lithuania or holland becomes a storage dump and jump off point for crininals. Legalisation obviously takes the potential income FROM the criminals and puts it in the hands of Government (is this a good idea?)

The bottom line here is that drug users, drinkers, smokers and those who get a dopamine rush from ANYTHING are not the people best suited to make a judgement on the damage they are doing to their community, faimily, employer, country or themselves!

However we should make sure that if any commodity is available then those making it available are ACCOUNTABLE for such product distribution. Even those whacked out goofing on heroin would say that if MERCK distribute a drug with serious side effects then a penelty should be paid....when was the last time a junkie took his dealer to court for selling him dodgy heroin?

Drug dealers usually aren't sued, but junkies who have issues with their suppliers always have the option of setting them up to be arrested, or simply murdering them.

A solution that might be cheaper in the long run would have government agencies buy the raw feedstock directly from the growers. Legitimate drug manufacturers could then use the feedstock to make legitimate, legal drugs from them.

I think that, theoretically this sounds like a good idea. But think about it, Drugs are legalized, with legalization of drugs comes some regulations, of course, because they are potentially harmful substances. With regulation comes inconvenience, paperwork, purchase limits, etc.etc.. Legalizing drugs has good benefits, but the cons beat the pros with this idea, the more I think about it, the more I disagree with legalizing drugs. What would a drug addict rather do, go to a pharmacy, wait in line, have his problem known to anyone who wishes, purchase a 'regulated' amount of a drug, or drive over to his dealers house, buy as many drugs as he wants, and leave in his own privacy. In addition, what will a legal drug customer do when he is in need of a large amount of drug to satisfy his addiction, and he can only purchase a regulated amount? Buy from the illegal drug market. With the legalization of drugs does not come the end of drug abuse, with it comes another way to buy drugs, the illegal drug market will change, but not critically, people will purchase both legal and illegal drugs, completely dissolving the purpose of legalizing them. In summarization, most of the ideas stated above are logical and well-thought, but I will never agree with the legalization of drugs.

The problem with making substances illegal is that by doing so we surrender control of them to criminals. It happened with alcohol, and it happened with illegalized narcotics, and other "recreational" drugs. I'm not proposing a solution here, just pointing out a major flaw in the (any) government's strategy. Making something illegal doesn't make it go away, it increases the expenses involved in controlling it, and raises the price. Making some narcotics legal yet controlled would serve only to lower the "street" price, undercutting the illegal merchants- so an intelligent drug kingpin would oppose legalization as much as law enforcement does.

I smoked grass in Viet Nam, to me then it was a life saver, but when I returned to the states, things got out of hand, all my friends were into some serious dope. What happened to my town?, it was everywhere, all kinds of drugs. Now there is an oxycontin and heroin problem with the kids. This is where the problem really lies, with the kids. I think that what we really have to face as a society is the fact that we, all of us like to get stoned for whatever reason we like, no we need to get stoned, that is a fact of modern life. Alcohol- wine, beer, whisky, vodka and other booz not mentioned is legal, no prescription required, apparently this is not enough! How about our pharma scientists put their heads together and create a new safe, legal substance that all of us, including children can enjoy, we can call it "cake"

Why in the hell would anyone want to screw up their body and mind taking drugs . WEAK and irresponsible to allow themselve to get into drunken stupper in the name of fun and peer pressure . As Newt Gendrich once stated . Shoot all drug dealers on sight . No trial just kill em right then & there if they are caught trafficing drugs . I agree worthless vermen IMO

That might work, unless you executed an undercover cop by mistake, or an innocent bystander. Of course, most hardcore drug dealers are well-armed, in spite of restrictions placed on us law-abiding citizens, so the moment a cop shows up to "deal with' a drug dealer, a shootout would begin, most likely resulting in even more innocent deaths.You didn't really think this through, did you?

I don't think Newt Gingrich thought it through either...

I would think lawyers would love your idea. a whole new bunch of businessmen they could sue

Historically drug use was rampant in alomost all countries. People used drus as a stimulant, to forget the present, to forget the past, to alleviate pain and distress, as a tranquilizer, and many others. Creative minds worked better under drug inducedeuphoria. But the society also didn't have gangs, automobiles to get behind the wheels, etc. Drug users were left alone.Most of the current day problems with drugs are related to the modern day consequences of altered behavior. Drug use under "guidelines" or "professional care" might prevent drug use-asociated diseases but not accidents and anti-social behavior. There is no quick-fix but unless the law is very strictly enforced as in Singapore or othert societies, laws will only encourage illegal drug use.

Actually we could end "the War on Drugs" by actually taking out the people, fields, and places where they are produced. Read or watch "Clear and Present Danger". The main obstacle is politics.

Attempts to destroy feedstock crops, such as poppy or marijuana fields, and arresting the growers, importers, and dealers have been tried for decades, with the net result being that we're losing the "War on Drugs." It's clearly time for a different strategy.

I would rather use the money of the War on Drugs to teach ethics to every man, woman, and child. Once a year, for everyone, for 20 years.

Ethics is not about what is absolutely right or wrong. Ethical consideration uses a system of tools to evaluate the consequences of a proposed action. Sooo many of the people I grew up with are brain dead, they do not have the capacity nor training to evaluate what will happen if ...

If you knew the consequences to you, your family, your community, and your friends if you allowed your friend to try drugs, would you still let them try it? Decisions are not always about doing what is best for us, it's about doing what is best for people we love.

I am with you until I see the effects that meth has on people and then I look at my kids. I am for anything that will help me keep my kids off meth. If I can say now when they are young that it is illegal, it can only help me keep them off it. I know they will make their own choice bt I refuse to give up without a fight.

Definately agree, but only about less serious drugs, shrooms, pot, things like that. Also, in response to a comment by madgirl, people smoke ciggarettes all the time, and binge drink, etc. The fact is, the government already lets people use these harmful substances, and funds medicare, and you seem to have no problem with that. Im pretty confident that letting people smoke pot or eat shrooms won't affect the number of people who need medical help. if anything, government regulated drugs would be cleaner, less likely to be laced, and not as commonly used. like some one else mentioned, they wont be as cool, if you have to get them from a pharmacy.

The term "drug" is very broad. Federal law defines a drug as "any article, other than food, intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of humans or other animals". After having read though all of the comments above, it seems quite a few people don't understand that there are differences between individual types of drugs. Heroin is not marijuana. The effects these two drugs have on a person is the difference between night and day (or the difference between the effects of mild sleep deprivation and... death). Yet, they are both lumped into the category "drugs".

Harmless drugs are being attacked by those who are somehow "morally opposed" to drug use, and commonly lethal substances are being defended for no reason other than the principle of freedom of choice. Perhaps we need a large dose of a drug I like to call "moderation and understanding".

Don't worry, it's not a suppository.

Based on the illiterate ramblings on the original contributor, I would suspect that he is a victim of the war on drugs. No doubt that the war isn't working as is, and I don't have the answer, but I don't think that surrendering is the answer.

This is a stupid idea.

But legalize canabis!

If you ban any product that is in demand then criminals will exploit this, prohibition is a good example. So organised crime will fall BUT society as we know it will collapse...

You cant just invade the countries that are making these illegal drugs. Most herorin comes from afganistan now mainly due to US intervention. The people grow the drugs as it is the only way of income. If you had no food for your family then you would to.

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.htmlThis is the history as to why marijauna became illegal. This will enlighten anyone who reads it as to why there will never be any change on the war on drugs. It is a money thing. What are you going to do, fire all the special local, state, and federal police and special task forces that deal with narcotics. What about all the "don't do drugs" or "This person or that person against drugs" agencies and associations, what about all those people's jobs? Then, what are all the drug dealers going to do? They will all be out of a job too. Then they will either take your job or turn to some other form of criminal activity to generate their income. The war on drugs was started, is continued, and will not stop simply because it is too profitable for everyone involved.

I've been thinking about the drug problem for some time... it's difficult to get a handle on it.

However, I believe many if not most people get hooked on serious drugs because someone has an interest in getting them hooked! If the big money were taken out of drugs, it seems we'd have much less of an incentive for the "pushers!"

If the cost of drugs were low, there'd also be less theft, robbery, and murder to obtain the funds for the drugs.

At any rate, the current program is not working, right? We need a new strategy!

I Support it 100 times over. What we have in place now is NOT working. Isn't it wise to go another route? How many of you know where we buy tobacco or malt, or hops - principal raw materials for the most dangerous products meant for human consumption (ciggs and booze). In the same way if cocaine was legal, no one would give a hoot where the popies grow. But the implications of such a move also have to be weighed very carefully. I think the benefits of decliminalizing drugs are obvious. The savings in prisons, social spending, welfare, medical and the now ridiculuous neo military spending on drug war. The figures, if you don't know are scaring. Too high!! Drugs, where legal or illegal are not beneficial to any society IMO. The danger of becoming a nation of junkies on the other hand is reduced once ALL aspects of drugs are controlled legally. This is lacking. Remember the story of EVE and ADAM - they did it because it was FORBIDDEN. A very good point missing when debating this issue is 'Who is so well connected, so well equipped, that the latest start of the art technology cannot track. - Who really runs the drugs trade. Think about it. It has to be someone with an upper hand. The government is too well equiped for a small time 'rich' colombia maffian boss - I don't buy that. When we legalise this we will see their lovely nice faces (white).

People who support the War On Drugs believe that laws work: if we make meth illegal no one will use it: if we keep it illegal we are protecting our children. The facts say otherwise. Drugs are illegal because people go with their deeply held beliefs instead of dealing with facts and evidence, honestly and logically. People who want to maintain the drug war are participating in a crime against humanity all in the name of protecting children. No drug law has ever protected a child. And let us not gloss over why drugs became illegal in the first place: The American Government believed that heroin using blacks would want to have sex with white women and that if white women used heroin they would submit to having sex with blacks. Same with Mexicans and marijuana. Making drugs illegal was nothing more than racists getting their opinions and fears put into the law books. And we have Richard Nixon to thank for the War on Drugs because he saw that those who didn't like him and fought against his policies used drugs. What better way to get rid of the opposition then to put them all in jail and take away their right to vote. We would all be a lot safer at the ATM at 3 in the morning if all drugs were legalized and easily available at the local QuickStop or 7-11. But hysterical people will never accept this and hysterical people never miss an opportunity to vote. Hysterical people will believe every tale their Government will tell them. The truth doesn't matter. The truth is the last thing they will accept.

Judging but all the comments, and variety of response, we can only conclude one thing; the war on drugs is a FAILURE. So if something is not working, and using so much resources (USA has the highest number of prisoners in the world approx 7,000,000 no kidding - I live in Sweden we have 87,994 you have nearly as many people locked as nearly all citizens in my country - land of the free' (petty crimes) and uses more resources to recruit manpower, go to war blah blah blah. Stop ALL WARS. We need a break. If marijuana caused any serious health issues, almost all Jamaican people would all be DEAD. which other proof do you need that the cannanis theory is just that - a theory. most of the ones that say you shouldnt take it probably use it!There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT cannabis is HARMFUL. Google that if you don't believe me. Read all the books you can. A truth will never become a lie because it is repeated. One the other hand, look at what alcohol and cigarettes can do to youngsters. Read it in the papers!!! Blame it on cannabis. I support the more this idea when I think about all this brainwashing.

No easy answer is an understatement. Tackling drug use by comparing it to alcohol or cigarette use is apples and oranges (and bananas). Pot may be a moderate drug, but I certainly don't want to be catching a contact high walking down the street (much like i don't want to inhale nicotine). Additionally, there aren't many functional crack, heroin, meth, users out there...would we be opening the door to more addicts? Clean needles are fine for one person or setting up a new injection, but sharing needles is still going to happen between users ("no thanks, I'll make my own with a fresh, clean needle).As one person stated...when someone is not able to afford the drugs (legal or illegal), they will need to find the money someway. I don't think various bartering options (sex, selling etc) with the pharmacist for legal drugs is going to work, so I would think violent crime would increase in order for some folks to get the money. Not an easy answer. The heart of addiction needs to be addressed. Less people wanting drugs is the best way to fix the problem of addiction, crime and personal sorrow caused by drugs.

i definitely agree with this, and i have discussed this with many people, and the only arguement people ever raise is that more people may use drugs and become detramental to society, but as seen in the case of alcohol, the number of people who succumb to dependancy and addiction is relatively few compared to the number of people who actually partake in the activity. i think that legalization is the only way to go

I agree, but the devil is in the details. Politicians screw up simple things, this could be a huge mess. But then, its already so bad... maybe some type of FDA could be established away from the standard politicians -- those guys have to take oddball positions to satisfy their constituants on this emotional issue.

I do not want Bush, Kerry, Pelosi, Gingrich, Clinton, Gore, Romney etc etc trying to sort this out.

The anwser is not legalization, its education. Yes some of the penalties for the ocasional user should probably be dorpped to just a ticket. The dealers should still go to jail.

Training your pet dog. The general public need to be involved in the policing of drug use. This could be done thru training your pet dog to snif out homes with drugs.After your dog is trained (the owner pays for subsidised training) then if the dog,during a walk, smell drugs outside a home then the dog, say ,scratches its nose. If the dog continues to do this for several visits ( to prevent false leads) then the owner would call police for them to investigate that house. The police would then use their police dogs.Drug dealers, especially, would be discovered quickly? Good bye to criminal drugs.

Well I suppose I will put my two cents in on the matter! Legalizing drugs is not the answer. In my opinion drug use stems from your upbringing. I was raised in a family where there was abuse both physical and mental on me and my two older brothers. Both our parents were smokers and drinkers and my stepfather was an angry drunk who liked to take out his frustrations on us kids. My brothers and I used all kinds of drugs growing up. We did drugs to escape our reality and to rebel against our parents. Today both my older brothers have screwed there lives up with drugs, the oldest one I think has serious brain damage. Both of them have been in and out of jail, both have benn divorced. I was lucky I met my wife who was clean never used drugs was raised in a family environment where she was shown love, caring, and concern and I straightned my life up. I beleive parenting is the key and if you are involved in your childs life and you love, respect and communicate to them you can keep your kids off drugs. I now have a child of my own who makes straight A's, is involved with school, plays sports, and is involved with the community donating time at a horse rescue. I like to think that my child has been drug free because my wife and I talk to our child and we encourage and show love and respect. In return we have a child that loves us and cares about how we feel and respects us as parents and actually learns from us.

Now as far as what we can do for those who have fallen victim to drug use,like meth, haroin, cocaine, pcp, lsd, ecstacy, and the many other mind altering brain damaging drugs. We can try to help them with legal drugs that combat the urge to use, we can provide rehab clinics, and psycotherapy for those realy screwed up individuals. As far as those who smoke pot I don't feel they are much of a threat and legalizing marijuana probably would not be a bad idea. It would be a good source of revanue and can be controlled with similar legal aspects like cigarettes. Must be 21 to purchase, cannot operate a motor vehicle while under the influence, etc.

MMMM DRUGS!

We already let people kill themselves with tobaco and alcohol, might as well let them legally kill themselves with the rest of it. If you infringe on other people rights or are a hazard on the road or at work you still need to go to jail though.

The war on drugs is popular because so many people make good livings from it - on both sides of the fence. It is a total failure, and has actually provided an excellent motivation for drug dealing by causing drug prices to skyrocket.

Drugs have always been around (the original Coke recipe), but when it was up to the individual to solve his own problems, we didn't have anywhere near the current level of trafficking.

The illegality of drugs also makes a mockery of the law, because we know drug laws are unenforceable. The best tool is the capitalistic system - "if you use drugs, don't bother to apply at this company." I have seen that in action a couple times, and the persons involved learned the lesson and cleaned up their act, without Big Brother's help.

Well, there's drugs and there's drugs. There's pot and there's heroin. Different solutions for different problems, I say.

Drugs don't kill people, people kill themselves with drugs. Some folks have a beer with dinner, some folks drink vodka till they die of alcohol poisoning. Should I be denied a beer with dinner because some jerks off themselves with booze?

Education is the key here, and it should start early. Kids should have a glass of wine (small!) with Mom and Dad with dinner. Learn the proper uses of alcohol, and remove the forbidden-fruit aspect. Western culture allows for this sort of thing, at least in Europe.

Some folks just have an addictive personality. Genetics or something. Take away alcohol, they'll overeat themselves to death, or gamble or have sex or something. Most addiction problems have some other root cause. Reasonable people don't go out and get addicted to heroin because it seems like a good idea. There has to be some screwed-up personal world view for this to happen. Fix that and the problem goes away.

Who's business is it what I put in my body, anyway? Educate me about the ins and outs of all substances, hold me responsible for my behavior at all times (ripped and sober), and give me access to stuff I know for sure what it is (grow my own!). Then leave me be. So there.

good ideas, it would stop everyone from being high and drunk all the time...i would vote for it if it came up in legislation

I said it 3 years ago and I haven't changed my mind: the only way to control drugs or any other commodity is to tax them, the only way to tax them is to legalize them. Legalized drugs would have to meet safety and purity standards and be distributed through licensed retail vendors. The point is, this is doable, it would reduce crime and make our streets safer and would raise revenues for enforcement (which would evolve into a revenue-collecting and retail oversight function).

Not going to happen in my lifetime.

WHL

Anybody who supports the war on drugs the way it is now is made of fail, plain and simple.

We can't end the war on drugs... the government would lose billions! A lot of the illegal drug activity is done by the federal (and some local) government.

Drugs are the third largest commodity... If we don't make the money our enemies do. The economy needs this and that and everything, everywhere, ever. The bush people have the best chances, really.

Most people (more than half) in jail in the US are incarcerated for drug-related charges: use, possession, manufacturing, or selling/distributing.

A large percentage of violent crimes are attributable to the drug trade.

Legalizing, taxing, and regulating "recreational" narcotics wouldn't entirely stop the illegal trade (as the repeal of Prohibition hasn't completely stopped bootleg alcohol manufacturing) but it would diminish it to a manageable size.

That's entirely to rational to be practical.

I'm definitely jumping on this boat. Ending the war on drugs solves alot of problems; it also takes a step in the direction of actually insuring personal freedoms. Drug use lies in the same category as drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, and drinking caffeine drinks. It does create a health issue...to the user. If I chose to smoke to packs of cigarettes a day and give myself lung cancer, I can. So why is it illegal for me to smoke pot until I get lung cancer? Of course laws will have to be implemented around drug use; just as you aren't permitted to drive intoxicated.Drug use will never disappear; society's acceptance of this fact will save them alot of time, money, and effort.

Schools must compete with the business of drugs

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/jamesbdunn?p=58

ADD/ADHD is caused from women drinking alcohol during their pregnancy.

It has not been studied yet as to whether ADD/ADHD can be caused by alcohol during conception, or through the sperm of the father.

Many, many alcoholics have ADD/ADHD and they pass it on to their kids; its a self-sustaining cycle. I've seen the effects of 3rd generation ADD/ADHD and the kids can hardly speak English.

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/jamesbdunn?p=167

I challenge the premise that the war has been a failure. How can you prove such a thing? It is quite possible that if not for the war on drugs, there would be even more crime and more drug usage. Just because the war has not completely eliminated all drug use does not mean that it has not had a detrimental effect on drug use. Example: I guess you can say, using your logic, that since millions of traffic citations are written each year, that speed limits have no effect on reducing the speed at which people drive and causality in traffic accidents and fatalities. Does this mean that there should not be any speed limits and that we should all be allowed to drive as fast a we like and that accidents and deaths will be reduced? If the argument applies to drugs then it applies to driving speed.

If pot was legal they would cram if full of nicotine to make it physically addictive.

Amsterdam has legalized drugs, and they are toughening up on the rules...

With this logic we should allow all those that wish to cross our borders to do so with impunity, for any and all to drive however they wish on our roads, for any and all to do whatever they want at all times with no legal ramifications. While I tend to believe in a live and let live mindset, it spells disaster for any society.

The war on drugs. Well, why not open up the proverbial medicine cabinet for any and all to self-diagnose and self-medicate. While the FDA and medical community certainly have a LOT to answer for it terms of this nation's health issues I'm not ready to just open up the nation's medicine cabinet!

And sell the fact that cocaine and marijuana is "entirely different" than any other drug. Drugs are drugs: yes, some are legal, some illegal. However, ALL are drugs!!!! A drug's legality is dependent upon it's addiction capacity. And, no, I do not want to eliminate the penalties for drug addiction, trafficing, or their sales/promotions!!! As far as I'm concerned, anyone wishing to have a "make love, not war" attitude with illegal drugs can move to Amsterdam!

I have found the problem with America today is that the people with objections to others choices in life some how think that they are correct where others are wrong. Such as lawmakers that don’t even live in or lived a particular lifestyle that they are trying to eradicate, or to attempt to control with words of law. There is no law enforcement personal to enforce our constitution? , When our civil rights are being denied by useless city codes, county laws and state laws. Right down to the selected enforcement of these laws by the front line in law, ”the uniformed officer” .a victim is some one who thinks that they are safe in a world of law’s, when in fact it’s the respect for the law that makes it work. But when the lawmakers don’t understand the basic right’s of its citizen’s. The citizen’s don’t respect the laws that are made? Therefor creating a paradox of law and criminal? Justice really is blind? Or do we learn this from childhood faith taught to us in predigest belief system? The right and wrong side of it ” no compromise” has divided us to the point of utter hatred for one another?

hello, as long as the market for drugs is there ,there will be somebody to sell ! when booze became legal nobody was killed for their business, so HOW MANY MORE WILL DIE ???Before some body gets it!!!if you can buy it at the store ,how many street dealers will there be????? NONE!!THANX (PLEASE READ CORRECT WHERE OTHERS ARE WRONG)

The experience of countries that have legalised "bad" drugs is that addiction rates spike in the short term (people getting curious), deaths from overdoses drop, and addiction rates then settle down in the long term.

A living, breathing, addict can be helped. An addict who died from an overdose due to variability in quality of supply can't be helped.

Legalising the purchase and use would also help the economies in those countries where the product is grown and refined. Communities get to benefit from tax income, users get to benefit from improved consistency in end product, families get to benefit by having more time to help their addicted children straighten their lives out and get beyond the need for drugs to provide gratification.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it has to become socially acceptable. At least if it's legal, addicts can talk to their friends and ask for help - friends can offer assistance to the addicts without becoming complicit in a crime.

Ahem! May I have your attention?

http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/faqs/faq_drugpolicy.htm

1) Is the CCLE a drug policy reform group?The CCLE is opposed to laws that make otherwise law-abiding people criminals simply for using psychoactive drugs. But drug policy is just one of the issues we address.

Our focus is on protecting freedom of thought, and we maintain that criminal drug prohibition violates freedom of thought by intimately infringing on the fundamental right to self-determine one’s own mental states. The CCLE’s drug policy work is different from that offered by most drug policy reform groups.

Most drug policy reform organizations take a harm reduction position against the war on drugs. They oppose the drug war because it (drug prohibition) causes more social harm than the drugs themselves. This is a consequentialist approach to the issue – one that debates the relative harms of drugs versus the relative harms of drug prohibition.

We believe that this harm debate is not only impossible to resolve (how exactly does one quantify the harm of a heroin overdose versus the harm of over-crowding prisons or corrupt police officers?), the debate structure may actually produce its own sort of harm because it encourages bad science about drugs and drug policy. Framing the debate and policy analysis in terms of harm encourages the government to exaggerate the harm associated with drug use, and to deny that some drug use may present little or no harm. (One example is, medical marijuana, which the federal government will not acknowledge has any medicinal value because such a acknowledgement would detract from its larger argument that marijuana is an inherently harmful drug that must be outlawed.) Additionally, we are concerned that a harm reduction approach to drug policy leaves open the possibility of future, more efficient (less harmful) forms of prohibition.

Most importantly, critiquing the drug war by focusing exclusively on its consequences ignores the character of drug prohibition – and its character is flawed.

We seek to add this -- otherwise unaddressed -- component to the national debate over drug policy.

2) How is the CCLE’s approach to drug policy different?

No elected officials want to try declare an end to the "War on Drugs" because they'd lose vote from the USA's large bloc of "family values" voters who think the government should regulate wholesomeness.

I don't know if these "family values" voters truly believe that making drugs illegal means their children won't get a hold of them, or if they simply don't WANT to believe it.

why do you think mind altering drugs are illegal, while mind numbing drugs are not?

If you want to end the war on drugs, you have 3 options only.

1. You stop fighting. Let them win, let them smoke, shoot up, crack up, or what ever it is they fancy. If it ruins their life, disassociates them from others, or kills them in the process, to bad. It was their choice. No more billion dollar struggle with this, put the money towards the deficit. If they live thru it and go on, good for them.

2. A social split. Create cards for them who want to do it, so that they are easily recognizable in the community. It would be like profiling, and a type of segregation except no ones forcing them to be this way, they make the choice. If anyone is caught with it in their system due to RDS (Random Drug Screenings)then they are forever marked as a drug user. Company's don't have to hire these people. Communities can ban them. Its a total social split. You cant have your pie and eat it to. They make the choice and choose a side. If they wanna quit, you get one shot to go clean. If you fail, ban for life. But on the upside, they can smoke it till they drop, and wont go to jail.

3. You turn Ultimate Hitler on them. You tweak the weed not to kill or anything, but to say, stim their reproductions or make their hair fall out. Genetic nightmare, or what ever. Something to make them fear it, and fear if its been tainted with. What high school kid is gonna take a chance on it if their afraid it could be tainted and they could loose some function in their bodys, or their hair. This is a worst case scenario.

madjay is right, and even if you have legal drugs sold there will still been an illegal market. Ending war is not possible, somewhere there will always be a war. America is so powerful because of our military. If we do not express these powers we will be thought of as weak and with the hate of terrorists with nuclear threat. Legalizing such as cocaine wouldn't hurt but it wouldn't do much. If the source is limited or more expensive, there will still be an illegal market for them. This does not solve anything and gangs will find new ways to make money and will still cause problems, drugs are not the only reason they exist and not the reason for them being territorial. Communism is the only way to eliminate such a problem, as long as people have free will and can exercise it, no sort of peace is possible

This idea would save the taxpayers a lot of money. They would probably see the difference within one year. Some of the prisons would shut down, they would not need so much police officers, lawyers would have to chose cases they would not normally touch, less judges, a lot of guards would be layed off, Mexico would go broke, government would make a lot of money on taxes, unions would have a lot of protests, the whole justice system would collapse. Maybe then these people that do work in these areas of employment would support the idea that alcohol and cigarettes cause more harm.

There is enough research to support the idea that Marijuana might be legalized. It has valid medical uses and isn't really any worse than alcohol use. So I would agree with your points for that one drug. But really, hard drugs are still a terrible crime problem! Ever seen the crimes a serious crack or crystal meth addict will commit just to get their next fix?? Stealing, killing, raping..whatever it takes. The chronic user is so out of his/her mind they often will not remember doing the crime. How would you like to have these freaks to start showing up frequently in your back yard at night, because they are looking for ways to find $$ for their next fix, which means breaking into your home? It already happens, but not to a degree that the police cannot manage. They were told what hard drugs will do but they chose not to listen. However, I really do think a much larger budget needs to go into jail & prison drug addiction treatment programs for first time offenders. Those who successfully complete these programs and serve their time with a good behavior record should be given a misdemeanor charge, if they have not killed or seriously wounded anyone. It could be a great incentive to keep some first time drug offenders out of future incarcerations and to allow them a lesser criminal record that would allow them to get a decent job.

I agree with the post above this one. Marijuana should be legalized. Marijuana is no more a drug than tobacco. First of all, a drug is a man made, mood altering substance. Marijuana is a natural plant much like tobacco only not addictive. I think the only reason Marijuana is considered a gateway drug is because in order to get Marijuana you have to associate yourself with a drug dealer that most likely also deals other drugs. This association will often put you in the same room with users of other substances and provide you with influence and curiosity to "see what it's like". When Marijuana is finnaly legalized it will provide a great deal of Government revenue through taxes and will lower alcohal related accidents (atleast I know I wouldnt drink nearly as much anymore). Think of the legitimate jobs this would also create. I would think the tobacco companies would be the first to jump on mass produceing commerical Marijuana which would make them large and in charge again and create more jobs inside thier companies to grow, process, deliver, sale, and market thier various brands of commercial Marijuana. I pray California legalizes it and bares great results so it would be viewed as a successful experiment. When great results are presented to the rest of the nation it would only be a matter of time before other states do the same thing. If it did fail, God forbid, then California can illegalize again and atleast there would finally be an answer to the 40 year old question of "What if?".

I was extremely diappointed in the flippant manner in which Obamarama handled this issue in his press conference yesterday. He ended his opportunity for using the "legalize cannabis" issue as a joke (he was laughing; people in the audience were laughing audibly) by stating clearly that he "didn't think it was a good idea." Later in the daily news cycle, we receive a report from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that we need to send troops to the Mexican border to help that border state fight the "Drug Lords" (the CIA's competitors). There is a lot of hidden agendas here, not to mention the fact that 60% of the new faux-terrorists revenue is from marijuana distribution. So much for Obama's "innovation and entrepreneurship", new sources of tax revenue, trimming the budget of wasteful spending, thinking outside the box - he's another sham front man for the special interests who are obstructing the will of the people.

He made some points with his ancient paradigm friends when he laughed off the suggestion. What he doesn't grasp is that these war on drugs/ prohibition of cannabis reforms are supported by a whole lot more people than the few with the most money and their goons who are still benefitting from these obsolete government policies and pograms (intentional typo)towards drugs in general and cannabis in particular.

noholdsbard

The biggest cost to America for the War on Drugs is in human lives - lost to drugs themselves, to prisons, to homelessness and wrecked lives mostly because we've created a society in which not only is there no treatment, but people who want treatment are actually shunned by society, by their families, by everyone. If you know personally even one person who has struggled with serious drug addiction, you know what I am talking about. And I'm not talking about folks who dabble in pot smoking while they're young. I'm talking about people who have serious addictions and can't get help because there is nowhere to turn and no one who will back them up and help them. I'm a wheelchair user. When my husband left me and I was going through some serious emotional problems and trying to figure out how I would manage to live on my own, I invited an old college friend, a junkie living out of his car, to live with me and help me in exchange for my helping him. Everyone but the two of us thought it was awful. But he's clean now and a great friend and caregiver and he says I saved his life. Maybe so, but he saved mine, too. When he wanted help, when he offered to check himself into a state rehab facility, his wife divorced him. His family would have nothing to do with him. And mine wasn't supportive of me, either - and certainly not about this decision. But guess what? It was a good gamble. It only worked because he was already ready to get help, and it might not be the best choice in every situation, but it was a great choice for me and it made me realize exactly what the cost of the war on drugs is in human potential. That is worth thinking about.

your idea "sounds" awesome, but the reality could look something like old china. When opium wasn't controlled, it turned a large portion of the country into addicts. The US is known for it loss of self control (McDonalds: 2 burgers cost less than 1 salad due to amazing meat demand-weight) and has too high of a chance to turn ugly. I do really think for certain drugs, you are 100% right! sell the crap in stores, then 99% of employers would be forced to drugtest, leading to a self-controlling situation.

The US war on drugs is a political tool. There is no reason in the world why the growing, distribution and use of any botanical herb, like Marijuana, should be criminalized ... the cost to society of enforcing it, is so much higher than any potential danger resulting from it. Add to this the known benefits from clinical and ritual use of the "Thinking Mans Herb" and it becomes quite clear that Marijuana, for one, should be decriminalized internationally.

Franto Hruz

Word it like that -- sounds like a solution. But it's not. There just is no solution for these kinds of problems yet. But you really thought this through.

In fact, the only solution would not be to ban OR legalize...

It would be to stop them from existing entirely.

I agree that is money better spent, but it's still a massive expenditure by the state. Also, if we make drugs fully "legal", then the state has no recourse to order people into rehab, etc. So, where does the dysfunctional addict go to get drugs when he can't afford legal ones?

To end the war on drugs you have to do three logical things.

Decriminalize use and control production, distribution and taxation.

Seperate recreational users from those who are medically addicted to the substances and treat the latter as having a medical problem.

Give an amnesty to all current domestic producers and distributors, with the proviso that all violence stops. Then the government could more effectively deal with the remainder of the street drug industry which would be the international traffickers and gangs.