The legalization of drugs

Last night while on EvC chat, Jar and I got into a heated debate about drugs/narcotics and the best way to mitigate their societal effects. Jar proposed that all narcotics should be legalized for a few reasons. I have requested that he lay out in bullet format so that he can accurately portray his plan and to show you the positive effects of such an implementation. To paraphrase, Jar believes that legalizing drugs, even hard drugs, will eliminate drug cartels if the US government manufactures/grows the drugs and distributes them all over the nation. He posits that this will free up most prisons, as he believes that the majority of prisoners are in on drug charges to begin with. He feels that once the middle man is removed and money is no longer an issue, the greed that controls the underground drug market will all but fade away, helping to reduce crime overall. This is a very brief synopsis of Jar's argument. However, I don't want to miss some of the more critical aspects of his argument, so we agreed that he would supply the rest of the information himself.Listening to his argument, it was very persuasive in that it almost sounds crazy enough to work. My contention is that the argument is too idealized. I believe he is simplifying the argument to perfect-world scenarios. Its kind of like Communism, in that, on paper I can't find one thing I dislike about it. But as we all know from experience, communism will only work in a utopian society-- it doesn't create the utopian society itself. Its an oversimplification of simplistic for such a complex issue. Here are my points:I agree that if the US made its own drugs and distributed them for free, it would all but shut down the cartels, at least in the US. However, in order to subsidize this measure, it requires money from taxes-- our taxes. A goal of this magnitude would cost a small fortune because as we all know, there is nothing in life that is truly free. It will be free for the disenfranchized, but will cost middle America a fortune. Secondly, if the US becomes the only nation that supports this, the US will be the major exporter of drugs around the world. If we know anything about human nature, its that we will find a way to bastardize something good and exploit it for monetary gain.Think of the size of surplus drugs, because we have no idea what the quantity of narcotics would be necessary to support the drug habit of a few million Americans. Dealing will still be an issue. Case in point: I don't do drugs, but lets say I tell the government that I do. The people with the drug addictions will no doubt be given an alotment. When they run out, people like me will use that to our advantage and sell our supply to the addicts. It will be the exact same problem except that now it will be state sanctioned drug dealing. I could make so much money of the appetite of those who 'need their fix.'The next issue is the astronomical effects on healthcare. Thousands upon thousands of Americans die each year from lung cancer due to nicotene and carcinogens from contained in tobacco products. Legalizing it has done nothing to abate the problem. Awareness has. Jar says that the revenue of closing down prisons will be used to subsidize the project, but he neglects the impact on healthcare. Overdose patients are already a problem. Imagine how many more people will be dying from legalized drugs? Imagine the impact it will have on transportation safety as people are essentially encouraged to drive impaired. Jar claims that driving under the influence would still be illegal, but he neglects to think about people who simply don't care. We already have a problem with alcohol. Why compound the problem by adding legalized drugs into the picture?I asked Jar, why, if this is such a great idea, that no other country, even Holland, has jumped onboard with this? He claimed that it was a strawman argument. I think its more than reasonable to ask this question as its very applicable. If complete legalization was worth the trouble I think at least one nation would have implemented this.I also asked Jar to write to his congressmen to get a measure passed. He stated that he has been writing this for years and that he first needs to convince people like myself that it would work. I asked for a compromise since the US is the third largest nation in on the planet, as far as population is concerned. I asked that a liberal state, such as Nevada, would be a perfect testing ground for this, as their laws are already laxed as it is when juxtaposed by other states. He claimed that it will not work on the city or state level because its an open society. This makes no sense to me because the US is arguably the most open nation in the world! In fact, that's where the US' vulnerability as always been. Why would it work only on the national level as opposed to the state or city level? The US would be the largest distributor of drugs in the world, funneling into Canada our drugs and exporting our problems overseas.In closing, I think it would fall flat on its face. Its too idealized to have any practical application. But if you disagree, explain to me why you feel it would work.

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

I've always found that odd how drugs can be smuggled into prisons. That's just sad because if drugs can get in, what else can as well? I think it speaks more highly against the US prison system than it does the drug problem. I would certainly agree that the current solution is anything but a solution. I do think some changes need to be made. I also believe that marijuana should be 'decriminalized,' as you say. Only drug pushers go in for that one and have the state or govt' regulate it and have it fall under the category of the ATF. But hard drugs are awful. Legalizing them will not make less addicts, it will make more of them and exacerbate the problem.

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

I would support this. Simple possession should be decriminalized, but pushers should go in. If it can be regulated, I'd be down for a trial, but only with marijuana for the time being.

I know you are going into law enforcement, so you are a bit torn with your beliefs. I'll give you my own perspective as I used to be in law enforcement. Whenever I caught someone with drugs in their possession, I had to assess the situation for what it is. For instance, my partner and I pulled over a vehicle for a random vehicle inspection (military, not civilian). I found a little pipe in the cab of his truck. He was looking really nervous. My partner, (being a young buck), came in their like gangbusters wanting to arrest him for simple possession. Because I was senior, I implored him not to do that. All it would do is get this guy a tiny little bs charge that merely inconvenienced him. It's not going to make him stop smoking weed, but it will give him a record and get his trucking licence pulled. We already checked for warrants, and he didn't he have so much as a speeding ticket. Why ruin this man's career for something so small?So, I informed him that he needs to be careful while coming on base with drug parapharnalia. I explained that I was cutting him a break, but that I had his info. If he did the same thing by not heeding my warning, he was going to go down hard for making me a fool over my kindness. What do you think I just did instead of going in there like gangbusters? 1. If he had a bad taste for law enforcement, I forced him to concede that good cops exist. That's a high mark for public relations. 2. I spared his career and his livelihood. 3. Because I let him go, but instilled the fear of God in him for next time, he will think twice about being stupid.Now, having said that, I had another scenario. A civilian pulled up to my gate looking high as a kite. Apparently he took a wrong turn and ended up Federal land, subject to federal law. Whoops. I sent him into the inspection lane and asked some simple questions. He was lying right off the bat. Before the search, I asked him if he had any weapons or drugs. He said, no. He then changed his mind and said that he quick using heroin a few months ago, but that there might be an old baggy in the glove compartment. When he said that, he was pointing towards his car and I noticed fresh track marks. Well, needless to say, I discovered multiple ounces of heroin embedded in the seats of his car. He had built for himself an elaborate hiding spot for drugs. I ran his information and it turns out he was out on parole for a number of charges. I had no qualms for taking him in. 1. He had large quantities of hard drugs. 2. He lied to me even though I was very up front with him. 3. He was a repeat offender.So, from a future law enforcement officer, I'd say that you fight battles only worth while and make a friend of the community whenever possible.

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

You need not tell me about the duplicity of US policy concerning drugs. It stultifying to think that tobacco and alcohol are legal while a little mary jane is illegal. Both are far more dangerous. In this case, its all about politics.How do you feel about the hard drugs though? Do you think giving people free reign would make them more or less responsible?

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

Paying corrections officers a decent wage would help considerably. They are finally starting to pay these people what they are worth. I don't know about other states, but Oregon corrections are upwards of 25-30 an hour starting, which is pretty good in this state. In New York or California that might not be very much.

quote:

---

But hard drugs are awful. Legalizing them will not make less addicts, it will make more of them and exacerbate the problem.

---

The reduction in tobacco use is attributed to campaign awareness. And the typical left wing thinking is coddle the criminals and turn the victim into the victimizer. You'd still have the same exact problem in Jar's scenario. People without any addiction to drugs would claim as though they do and sell it to those who are addicts. Unless of course you think the government is going to supply the same individual with an unending amount of drugs for use. First of all, the Constitution only applies to the United States, not Columbia. Secondly, if the Colombian gov't didn't want to play along, they wouldn't. That's right, they will always find a way to adapt. Except this time, on top of their still being violence attributed to drugs, on top of it, the taxpayers would subsidize all of its own problems.

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

As I already stated, when the actual users run out of their supply, the people claiming to do drugs will have a surplus. If anyone knows anything about addiction its that tolerance builds and it takes more and more drugs to produce the same fix. The people acting as though they do drugs will have an adundance and sell that to the actual users. As we already know, a true junky will do anything for a fix. You haven't eliminated the black market, you just feed it tax dollars and have it fester. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

I agree. I think substituting hemp, which has absolutely no THC in it, over paper makes alot of sense. I also like the way Amsterdam does it with hash bars. But let that be the buisness of an entrepreneur, not the burden of the American taxpayer. The "Peoples pot" seems a bit The major difference is male and female. Hemp comes from male plants and cannibus saptiva comes from the female hemp plant and produces buds and THC. In other words, you can't get high whatsoever on a male plant. The DEA was not in existence in the 1930's. I believe you are thinking of the Prohibition Bureau. I can take you even further back than during Prohibition. The colonies first used hemp in abundance as a cheap crop to make clothes and hemp paper from. It was the logging industry that ran them out of buisness because at that time, the logging industry was in cahoots with the US government. Of course, no one at that time really understood the symbiotic relationship we share with trees. For all they knew, oxygen was just something ubiquitous for no apparent reason.

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

I have tacitly and overtly heard people state that the CIA funnels drugs into minority-dominated neighborhoods in order to kill them all off. That's just stupid and I don't mind saying so. Its just a conspiratorial rant. I've also heard some people say that the 'War on Drugs' generates a revenue that didn't previously exist. Looking strictly from monetary point of view, this makes sense that it generates alot of money. That doesn't mean the US isn't serious about getting rid of drugs. The reality is, you can't get rid of drugs completely just like you can't live in a world completely devoid of crime. Jar thinking he can kill two birds with one stone is a lofty dream. I can appreciate the argument as far as it goes, but to suggest that its going to solve the drug problem isn't so.But again, if the War on Drugs wasn't real, the US wouldn't spend gobs of money funding the DEA, the ATF, Customs, the Coast Guard, Border Patrol, and so on and so forth. Nor would every major cities police force have a specialized narcotics unit if they weren't serious about it. They are serious about it. What Jar is saying, is that they are seriously stupid to think they are going to stop drugs and crime through a hit-em-up gangbusters style approach. In that aspect I believe he is right. However, to think that crime will all but go away because you give people drugs is like putting a band-aid on an amputee. The Northwest has been hit particularly hard by the Meth epidemic. It is for the 21'st century what crack was in the 80's and 90's. Oregon has passed a law just like the one you described. It seems to be helping the situation bu cutting out the main, active ingredient. But Methheads are quite resourceful and have found ways of getting around it by banding together. Another huge problem in the Metro-Portland area is metal. Meth heads have resorted to stealing metal and copper wherever they can find it. I can't remember the pound to dollar ratio, but its pretty high, making it one of the more lucrative metals to sell. Its so bad that they are tearing up guard rails, pulling apart bridges and train tracks. And for the copper, they go into new construction areas where an electrician has already layed cable through the house and steal it for the copper filament.

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

These are outstanding questions to ask: There are many different kinds of drugs-- some synthetic, some grown naturally, some hydroponically. Who covers distribution? How does anyone know how much are needed and where? Is a clinic in Los Angeles' Hollywood district going to have thousands of pounds of various narcotics to dispense? How much is going to be alloted to a clinic in Lincoln, Nebraska? How much and what kinds of drugs will Yuma, Arizona receive? What about Scranton, Pennsylvania? This is an enormous nation with an insatiable appetite for narcotics. These are not strawmen, these are legitimate questions. Exactly. If I can go down to the clinic in downtown Portland and get me some free crack, I can cover the other districts like Eugene, Salem, Gresham who are in demand for more crack. I could be the most succesful peddler ever. I have pure profit. I have no overhead costs because I don't have to spend any money to re-up my supply. I make nothing but money. This is another question that I raised. If there is an allotment, which there would have to be, some people would run out. I can pretend to have a drug problem and I can sell to them because they will pay. If there is no cap, then I could request all the drugs they have and be mister candyman or the ice cream who dispenses all the drugs. Either way, I win because selling drugs is no longer a crime. I'd be untouchable. It would be pretty stupid if they didn't. Case in point: The average cocaine high lasts 15 minutes. Do really think that a true junky is going to lovingly and pateintly come down to the clinic once a day to get just one fix? Hell no! They'd break into the place at night if they could, which, by the way, raises another question about security needs. Another excellent question. Dial-some-dope hotline where you can order all your drugs.Holmes, you live in Amsterdam right? Maybe you can answer better than all of us, why even Amsterdam is not completely laxed on the drug issue. I know they are very liberal when it comes to drugs, but Jar is suggesting something far in excess of that. What are your thoughts?

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

quote:

---

But hard drugs are awful. Legalizing them will not make less addicts, it will make more of them and exacerbate the problem.

---

NOPE... None

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

I really have no problem with marijuana, especially when considering how less dangerous it is compared to nicotine and alcohol. I stopped smoking a long time ago. Even before I was a Christian. I just personally no longer enjoy that feeling of being 'burnt.' I would say thank you for the compliment, but I'm not the artist. I'll email the info to you and I'll explain why when I do. Is the email on your account current? Is that your main email address?

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

quote:

---

The Northwest has been hit particularly hard by the Meth epidemic. It is for the 21'st century what crack was in the 80's and 90's. Oregon has passed a law just like the one you described. It seems to be helping the situation bu cutting out the main, active ingredient. But Methheads are quite resourceful and have found ways of getting around it by banding together. Another huge problem in the Metro-Portland area is metal. Meth heads have resorted to stealing metal and copper wherever they can find it. I can't remember the pound to dollar ratio, but its pretty high, making it one of the more lucrative metals to sell. Its so bad that they are tearing up guard rails, pulling apart bridges and train tracks. And for the copper, they go into new construction areas where an electrician has already layed cable through the house and steal it for the copper filament.

---

OregonArizonaNevadaIts not an urban legend.

quote:

---

I really have no problem with marijuana, especially when considering how less dangerous it is compared to nicotine and alcohol. I stopped smoking a long time ago. Even before I was a Christian. I just personally no longer enjoy that feeling of being 'burnt.'

---

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you explain?

What rule have I violated?