Legalization of drugs

[Cypress]

In drug war, the beginning of the end?

Between 1971, when Richard Nixon launched the war on drugs, and 2008, the latest year for which official figures are available, American law enforcement officials made more than 40 million drug arrests.
That number roughly equals the population of California, or of the 33 biggest U.S. cities.

Forty million arrests speak volumes about America’s longest war, which was meant to throttle drug production at home and abroad, cut supplies across the borders, and keep people from using drugs.
The marathon effort has boosted the prison industry but failed so obviously to meet its objectives that there is a growing chorus of calls for the legalization of illicit drugs.

In the United States, that brings together odd bedfellows. Libertarians in the tea party movement, for example, and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), an organization of former police officers, narcotics agents, judges and prosecutors who favor legalizing all drugs, not only marijuana, the world’s most widely-used illicit drug.

In Mexico, President Felipe Calderon has proposed a debate on the legalization of drugs – an implicit admission that the war he launched against his country’s drug cartels in 2006 cannot be won by force alone.
(The death toll has just risen above 28,000 and keeps climbing).
Calderon’s predecessor, Vicente Fox, followed up by declaring that since prohibition strategies had failed, Mexico should consider legalizing “the production, sale and distribution of drugs.”

It’s difficult to see how that could work without parallel moves in the United States, the main market for Mexican drugs, and it’s equally difficult to imagine Congress or state legislatures signing off on the regulated sale of cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine.

But there is growing acceptance that marijuana should be treated differently. Support for less rigid policies spans the political spectrum and has come from unexpected quarters.
Sarah Palin, the darling of the American right, recently stepped into the debate on marijuana by describing its use as a “minimal problem” which should not be a priority for law enforcement.
That’s a view widely shared. Last year, a blue-ribbon panel chaired by three former Latin American presidents (Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, Cesar Gaviria of Colombia and Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil) published a report that rated the drug war a failure and urged governments to look into “decriminalizing” the possession of marijuana for personal use.

THE BEGINNING OF THE END?

“Taking all this together, there is reason to believe that we are at the beginning of the end of the drug war as we know it,” says Aaron Houston, a veteran Washington lobbyist for marijuana policy reform.

Far-fetched? Perhaps. But how many people in the late 1920s, at the height of the government’s fight against the likes of Al Capone, would have foreseen that alcohol prohibition would end in just a few years?
Prohibition lasted from 1920 to 1933 and is now considered a failed experiment in social engineering.

Alcohol and marijuana prohibition have much in common: both in effect handed production, sales and distribution of a commodity in high demand to criminal organizations, both filled the prisons
(America’s population behind bars is now the world’s largest), both diverted the resources of law enforcement, and both created millions of scoff-laws.

According to government estimates, up to 100 million Americans have tried marijuana at least once and the list of prominent citizens who admit having smoked it at one point or another is impressive.
It includes President Barack Obama, his predecessor, George W. Bush, Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Senator John Kerry, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and former Vice President Al Gore. Not to forget Bill (I didn’t inhale) Clinton.

The argument for making marijuana legal is straightforward: it is thought to account for around 60 percent of the profits of international drug cartels, estimated at up to $60 billion annually.
Take almost two thirds of that business away and the cartels’ power to corrupt and confront the state, as they do in Mexico, will decline sharply.

How close (or far) the United States is to an end to marijuana prohibition will become clear on November 2, when voters in California decide on a ballot initiative known as Proposition 19.
Its official title, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, reflects what marijuana reform advocates around the country have long campaigned for – treat it like alcohol and tobacco.

The act would allow Californians over 21 to own, cultivate or transport up to an ounce of marijuana for personal use.
This is distinct from marijuana for medical purposes, which is already legal in California and 13 other states, as well as the District of Columbia.

Public opinion polls on the proposition so far give no clear picture.
A yes vote would be virtually certain to hasten changes elsewhere — California is not only America’s most populous state, it also has a long track record for setting trends.

source

Should Marijuana be legalized?
Vote and give your reasons.

 

[England my lionheart]

I voted yes,i have never understood what all the fuss is about,just like alcohol prohibition in America the so called war on drugs is doomed to failure

 

[Tarheeler]

Yes, I think it should be legal.

Consenting adults should be free to choose to do as they please with their bodies. The problems associated with drug use (such as robbery, assault, impaired driving) are already illegal regardless of drug use.

 

[Erebus]

I personally believe that it should be legal providing people are aware of possible health risks. It's up to the individual in question whether or not they want to take the risk.

 

[Aquitaine]

I voted yes, and honestly, I think all hard drugs should be legalized.

However I'm actually not a junkie or anything, I don't even smoke, never tried Weed and the only drug I use is Alcohol from time to time. My reason is because I believe if you legalized all the hard drugs and Weed, then the global black market and all the gangs will instantly go out of business, and hopefully most of the violence in Central/South America and other parts of the world will cease because of it.

I also think this is the right way to go because let's face it: you can't legislate to prevent people from ruining their own lives. If you attempt to ban one addiction, they'll either find a way to bypass the ban or get a new addiction, whether it be a new drug, or even an addiction to something like RF.

Legalize 'em and make it so that the prices are high enough to deter consumption, but also low enough so that they don't have any black market application.

 

[Darkness]

Yes, I think it should be legal.

Consenting adults should be free to choose to do as they please with their bodies. The problems associated with drug use (such as robbery, assault, impaired driving) are already illegal regardless of drug use.

I am all for the legalisation of marijuana, which would hopefully cause less people to use more harmful drugs. However, I do not think other hard drugs should be legalised because of the negative societal implications. That is, a mother who takes hard drugs is probably doing a disservice to her kids. Even though the effects might not be immediate, that does not mean they are not real.

 

[Tarheeler]

I am all for the legalisation of marijuana, which would hopefully cause less people to use more harmful drugs. However, I do not think other hard drugs should be legalised because of the negative societal implications. That is, a mother who takes hard drugs is probably doing a disservice to her kids. Even though the effects might not be immediate, that does not mean they are not real.

But so is the mother who gets drunk, spends all her time time on facebook, or just doesn't give a damn.

The behavior is not dependent on drug use.

 

[HonestJoe]

I think there could be an argument for legalisation of Marijuana (though even that isn't as simple a statement as it sounds since that covers quite a wide range of very different products with very different risks and consequences).

I'm less convinced on harder drugs because, as has been pointed out, it is only the individual who is affected by their use but there are potential societal effects to take account of and we're then including substances which can very easily kill.

One thing I do think is needed in this debate is to destroy the myth promoted by some that legalisation of all drugs would create a magical world full of clean, healthy drug users supplied by shiny moral companies for the good of everyone.

Regardless of how a legalised system were managed, there would be major problems. We'd still have criminals (though some of them would be in boardrooms rather than back streets), we'd still have some addicts destroying their lives and the ones of those around them, we'd still have third-world farmers producing drugs for primarily western consumption rather than food for themselves and we'd still struggle to keep dangerous drugs away from children and other vulnerable people.

Maybe the problems would be more easily managed under a legalised system (I'm not sure) but the certainly don't just go away.

 

[BucephalusBB]

There we go again, it is already legalized you silly people

 

[no-body]

Legalize all drugs, all of them. Then flood the streets with cheap drugs immediately. Use the profits to form free top of the line rehabs and mandatory drug classes in schools, make drug related offenses more serious, etc. You will see crime and drug use drop. Legalizing marijuana is a good start but it's ***** footing around.

Though I realize none of this will ever happen for political, economical and psychological reasons.

 

[sandandfoam]

Legalize all drugs, all of them. Then flood the streets with cheap drugs immediately. Use the profits to form free top of the line rehabs and mandatory drug classes in schools, make drug related offenses more serious, etc. You will see crime and drug use drop. Legalizing marijuana is a good start but it's ***** footing around.

Though I realize none of this will ever happen for political, economical and psychological reasons.

I'm with you - legalize them all.
Sadly this won't happen and instead we'll continue to make users criminals and scumbags billionaires.

 

[tumbleweed41]

As with alcohol and tobacco. Legalize it, regulate it, tax it.

 

[Darkness]

But so is the mother who gets drunk, spends all her time time on facebook, or just doesn't give a damn.

The behavior is not dependent on drug use.

The difference is that with alcohol and facebook you can use each of them responsibly without any problems. It very hard to use heroin responsibly.

Legalize all drugs, all of them. Then flood the streets with cheap drugs immediately. Use the profits to form free top of the line rehabs and mandatory drug classes in schools, make drug related offenses more serious, etc. You will see crime and drug use drop. Legalizing marijuana is a good start but it's ***** footing around.

Though I realize none of this will ever happen for political, economical and psychological reasons.

I am not sure why this initiative rests on the legalisation of all drugs. All the other measures seem like good stand-alone initiatives. And, I am curious what you mean by "drug-related offences" if all drugs are legal.

 

[LuisDantas]

I see no point in making marijuana more readily available, although I guess it could reasonably be legalized much the same as, say, gardenal.

As a rule I abhor the very idea of entertainment drugs. I would much rather suport re-establishing alcohol restrictions of some sort.

 

[HonestJoe]

As with alcohol and tobacco. Legalize it, regulate it, tax it.

Because we don't have any problems with alcohol or tobacco do we!

Seriously, what makes you think legalisation won't introduce a whole set of different problems while failing to eliminate all of the existing ones?

 

[Darkness]

Because we don't have any problems with alcohol or tobacco do we!

Seriously, what makes you think legalisation won't introduce a whole set of different problems while failing to eliminate all of the existing ones?

In the 1990's the arguement was made in many European countries that the legalisation of prostitution would eliminate most of the problems typically associated with it. The experiment failed miserably. Many of the countries that were championing legalisation are now considering re-criminalisation. The Netherlands had to shut down two-thirds of all brothels, because even though they were given official licenses, sex trafficking and child prostitution became more prolific than before, by some accounts. Thus, I used to be a supporter of the legalisation of drugs and prostitution, but real-world facts sometimes have a funny way of knocking you sideways. I am a supporter of doing for drugs what Sweden did with prostitution.

The Social Democratic party in Sweden started an all out assault on the practice of prostitution, rooting their onslaught in feminist principles. They decided that women, girls and children are victims of the chauvinism of men. The act of prostitution itself was decriminalised and prostitutes are treated with kindness and are put into rehabilitation programs. The police forces were instructed to think about the issue of prostitution as a human rights issue. Johns and pimps are arrested and given harsher sentences than before. Since the early 2000's, prostitution has decreased by about 80 per cent (human traffic has faded), and in reaction of the world's most successful anti-prostitution program, Swedish public opinion is weighted heavily against the practice of prostitution. So, if anybody tells you society is incapable of tackling big issues, tell them about Sweden.

 

[sunsplash]

Alcohol can be consumed in moderation without harmul effects to the personal body or impairing an individual where others safety is at risk, but isn't the point of smoking marijuana to get high, and getting high is the result no matter what? Not everyone drinks to get drunk - which is where I see the difference. I'm for its use medicinally but don't know if I support its use otherwise. In theory, I see how it could benefit a society if taxed and regulated, but I'm not convinced that theory is realistic. Oy...I don't know. :run:

 

[LuisDantas]

Alcohol can be consumed in moderation without harmul effects to the personal body or impairing an individual where others safety is at risk,

It can. But it often isn't, often enough purposely so. That is why it must be regulated, arguably more strictly than it already is.

but isn't the point of smoking marijuana to get high, and getting high is the result no matter what?

Far as I can tell.

Not everyone drinks to get drunk - which is where I see the difference. I'm for its use medicinally but don't know if I support its use otherwise. In theory, I see how it could benefit a society if taxed and regulated, but I'm not convinced that theory is realistic. Oy...I don't know. :run:

Good points.

 

[no-body]

I am not sure why this initiative rests on the legalisation of all drugs. All the other measures seem like good stand-alone initiatives. And, I am curious what you mean by "drug-related offences" if all drugs are legal.

It has nothing to do with this initiative, I am just one of those people that takes the time to point out that things would be better off if all drugs where legal and freely available.

What I mean by my other statement is, don't arrest people just because they obtain or put a substance in their body. If they start stealing, murdering, neglecting their kids, driving on drugs, whatever then punish them for that and severely. But stop blaming an inanimate substance.

I know this is an emotional topic for some because they would rather blame the drugs rather than the people themselves (or themselves)

 

[England my lionheart]

In Britain there have been many deaths caused by legal highs such as Mephedrone,even were they to be banned just a slight change in formula will make them legal again 'Legal highs' crackdown is doomed to failure, say experts - Health News, Health & Families - The Independent

IMO people should be told the health risks and if caught driving for example while under the influence face the same penalties as drink Drivers and then leave it up to them.
The Prisons are full of people who should'nt be there like petty dealers and home growers so why throw money at a lost cause plus if they were legal you would'nt have drugs that contain impurities and cause health problems.

In the UK for example Cocaine can be as little as 10% pure with the rest being made up of Phenecetin which is a banned substance known to cause Kidney failure and Cancer,Lignocaine Dental painkiller,Tetrimosole which is a dewormer for Animals and Boric acid usedto kill Cockroaches,there are many more but i think you get my drift.

I am in no way condoning the use of Cocaine or other illegal drugs but if they were to legalise and Police Drugs we would havea smaller Prison population and a lot more empty Hospital beds.