Having said that, an addiction to pot can be as debilitating over-doing on booze.

But, and this is a huge difference, pot is not going to put you on in the ER or staring down the barrel of a gun no matter how many times you go to score it and use it, not counting driving under its influence.

Legalizing all drugs is a a bad idea, and I’m by no means saying that pot and excessive alcohol consumption are without their risks, but there’s a need for proxy enforcement of laws regarding the manufacture and distribution of “HARD” drugs. The people that make and distribute drugs like crank and crack a fully aware of the social cost of their wares and are in essence conspiring to destroy our communities.

But, seriously, the people I’ve known to sell marijuana and MARIJUANA ONLY have always held normal if not mid-management work positions and raised healthy kids with productive livees.

all addictions are terrible but there are better ways of helping addicts than throwing them in prison. at the end of the day, the best thing would be to minimize the damage to society from addicts, even if that means letting them destroy themselves in a controlled environment.

Arrest them all? Riiiiight.

“The Beatles took pot and created Sgt. Pepper’s. Anna Nicole Smith took legal drugs and she couldn’t remember the number for 9-1-1.” – Bill Maher

And those people aren’t the subject of this post. Only the addicts which commit crimes and hurt the innocent concern me.

“The sooner they are gone and the uglier their departure the better. Choices have consequences and tax money shouldn’t be spent sugar coating them.”

Looks like we are in agreement, then.

“Your argument for banning drugs are very, very similar to the arguments for banning guns.”

Actually, I want to legalize drugs. That way the price would drop, and far gone addicts would either straighten up and stop committing crimes (highly unlikely), or they will kill themselves through overdose (more probable).

James

Drugs have been available since the dawn of time. These plants didn’t just pop up ready-to-use out of the ground. They are the product of 1000s of years of selective cultivation by men and women who wanted a better, longer lasting high. People have lived several millenia with drugs “uncontrolled” with no ill effects other than the creation of a few religions. I will not say the drugs are harmless. After all, some of the religions they inspired (through visions) are quite deadly. Nor are the drugs useless. Modern medicine would be impossible without them.

I am a cold calculating bastard who sees the accelerated departure of those who make the choice to use chemical assistance, whether alcohol, illicit drugs or tobacco, to escape reality and responsibility a feature not a bug. The sooner they are gone and the uglier their departure the better. Choices have consequences and tax money shouldn’t be spent sugar coating them.

You ever work with people addicted to hard drugs? Alcohol takes a lot longer to kill someone, and they have to consume greater amounts by several orders of magnitude.

I don’t think I would know that I was working with someone who used hard drugs unless that use had become an overwhelming problem — and hard drug use often does not become an overwhelming problem. Only a fraction of the people who try cocaine, ecstasy, smoked opium, etc. spiral into addiction.

Even actual addiction might not become truly overwhelming if the user can find a regular supply of known quality. There are, for instance, eminent addicts; just don’t expect them to announce their addiction.

I think it’s important to realize the selection bias involved in judging drugs’ effects from the only drug users you can easily recognize as drug users — down and out junkies.

If alcohol use were driven underground to the same extent, the only alcohol users we’d recognize as alcohol users would be down and out drunks.

You ever work with people addicted to hard drugs? Alcohol takes a lot longer to kill someone, and they have to consume greater amounts by several orders of magnitude.

“No adults have approached my son to resell him beer or whiskey.”

Wait until he is a teenager. He’ll probably buy the booze and carefully keep from mentioning it to you, though.

“Thanks for your useless and ineffective war on drugs.”

Why doesn’t anyone ever read what I write?

It is hardly MY war on drugs since I favor legalization. But I am one of the few who do so in spite of the fact that there are some really nasty potential consequences.

James

So far you have not convinced me that the benefits suggested for legalization would not occur nor what the terrible consequences of legalization would be. All I know is that a neighbor from my upper middle class neighborhood with grown and departed children approached our 12 year old son and a friend to inform them that he was the local source for marajuana.

Some how I doubt he would be doing this if dope could be bought legally. No adults have approached my son to resell him beer or whiskey.

And all the police could do was their normal investigative tactic that turned up nothing. So unless I want to subject my son to a court room cross examination by a pit bull drug attorney, nothing will be done.

Thanks for your useless and ineffective war on drugs.

My only consolation is that my son was willing to tell me what a scumball I have for a neighbor.

There is also the argument that legalization would lead to standardization that would save junkies’ lives – they would know the purity/dose of every batch, not just guess it.

There were gangs in the 1950s, when you could buy firearms by mail. Why wasn’t there the level of violence we see in today’s gangs? When one corner of your turf is simply an arbitrary border, it may not be worth risking your life. When it is worth $10,000 a weekend from drug sales, you might be willing to risk more to keep it. Or to take that corner from others. This applies, not just in the US, but in every narcotics trafficking country.

Fair enough.

I actually think that most of those who advocate legalization haven’t fully considered what will happen if they get their way. But it is more dramatic to claim cynicism instead of ignorance.

James

You assume that they have the same opinion as you do. Of course you don’t call them killers, but you all but do so. You say they want to make a policy change that result in a net increase of people dying because of drugs, that they are aware of this and yet, for reasons undescribed, persist in advocating it. All of these (or similar) is needed to come to the conclusion that they are cold and calculating.

You are being uncharitable and overly broad in your argument and that is what I object to.

Legalization advocates would point out that the economic cost of illegal drugs would be extremely low if they were suddenly acceptable.

I don’t doubt that some legalization advocates would like to see drugs also made socially acceptable, but most are simply arguing to bring the black market into plain sight, where it can be taxed and regulated — in the same way that we ended alcohol Prohibition decades ago.

We have plenty of evidence that people can spiral out of control from alcohol abuse, but making alcohol illegal had far worse consequences than keeping it legal.

Why shouldn’t drug prohibition follow that same pattern?

Actually, they have the same opinion that I do. I also never said that they were “proxy killers”, just that they were cold and calculating bastards. You aren’t a killer if you allow someone to kill themselves, after all.

James