What would be the end result of legalizing all drugs?

[LostInAnomie]

I fairly libertarian on the issue of drugs. I think that what you do with your own body is your own business. However, I'm not sure how I feel about a total legalization of all drugs. I think that once large corporations see that they can make huge profits from selling pleasure drugs they would produce even stronger and more addictive drugs. The drugs that people use now would become obsolete. They would also be allowed to market them through mass media and provide the image that being a consumer of their drugs it the cool thing to do.

What's your opinion?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. There has to be more than just legalization

in many European countries, there is a drug rehab structure in place to help those who wish to get off the drugs-because drug addiction is treated as what it is, a medical condition. There would also have to be a structure in place to encourage addicts to use clean needles and not share them (just because drugs would be legalized doesn't mean this would automatically happen). I think it would be paramount to also reign in just what Big Pharm could say about addictive pleasure drugs-just as cigarette companies and liquor companies are curtailed as to what they can/cannot advertise. But then I think Big Pharm should be curtailed, period. :)

[Swamp Rat]

2. There would be a big party that would last and last...

:D

[tridim]

3. Legal: Cannabis and soft hallucinogens

Decriminalized along with free rehab: Everything else

I can't support flat out legalizing drugs like meth, crack and opiates because they kill. Same reason I don't support drinking Draino.

[Mythsaje]

4. I'm not sure it's fair to say that opiates kill...

At least, given a situation in which they were of regular strength and purity rather than cut to varying degrees of effectiveness, deaths related to opiate use would be minimalized considerably.

[tridim]

14. Well, that's kind of true, but look at China

The English used opium as a weapon against them, and it worked.

[mike_c]

5. yeah, but draino is legal anyway...

...as are lots of other things that kill. That's the fundamental illogic in the position that making drugs illegal is the equivalent of not drinking Draino.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

8. Decriminalize it and just punish the dealers.

Offer help to the users if they need it. Putting them in jail doesn't help; they'll start picking up "skills" from real criminals.

[alfredo]

59. In the country where I lived, Pot was legal to possess, but

illegal to sell. It was good shit too.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

60. What country was that?

When I was in Montreal, the cops really didn't care if they saw you smoking. It didn't cause mass amounts of people smoking up on the streets. The drug laws in this country are so archaic.

[alfredo]

61. Ethiopia back in the late 60's

Ann Arbor Mich had pot as a five dollar fine. When a Republican won the race for mayor, he made it illegal again.

The mob makes a lot of money on drugs. Keeping it illegal keeps their profits high. It's all about money.

[radwriter0555]

63. Empty the jails, the prisons... 95% of the jails would be EMPTY...

overturn all sentencing. Give people their lives back.

The courts would be able to deal with REAL criminals. The jails would house REAL criminals.

Kids wouldn't be turned into criminals just for holding a joint.

It would be... a miracle. Everything would change. Drug abuse would be treated as a disease instead of a crime.

Imagine that.

[madmusic]

11. They rarely kill (more moral panic)

And heroin isn't bad on the body at all unless impure. As safe as pot, actually. Sure safer and more healthy than methadone.

EDIT: as

[tridim]

15. The problem with opiates is the addiction

I've been offered opium and declined because everyone says it's amazing and incredibly addictive, "You'll want to do it again and again". I don't need that monkey on my back.

How do you legalize something like that? It'd be better to decriminalize it.

[madmusic]

20. True, it can be...

But the real problem is getting it and the laws against it, not the addiction itself. Medically, heroin is a rather benign drug. Not that I'm suggesting trying it. If it were legal though and an addict could go pick up a fix under the supervision of a nurse or doctor, he/she could be a normally functioning human being (instead of a worthless animal).

As someone else mentioned, counseling should be available for any underlying problems.

Crack is a different story, but it could be that getting it is half the fun/addiction. If it were freely available, that could take some of the appeal out of it. That's a tougher one.

[Djinn]

34. utter myth

It's less addictive than many currently legal drugs. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it can be sold by anyone to anyone. Alcohol and most prescription drugs are legal but regulated. Sure some people would be hopeless addicts in a legalised sitution but just as alcoholism isn't an excuse for alcohol prohibition neither is the addictive possibilities for other drugs a reason to prohibt them.

[tridim]

38. I've never done it, so I don't know first hand how addictive it is

but I've known people who simply couldn't stop. That's addiction in my book.

Again, opium devastated China.

[Djinn]

43. so would you advocate

making coffee illegal (or "decriminalised") how about shoes? because I seem unable to stop those compulsions?

So mnay people claim that pot should be legal but heroin/speed is BAD mmm-kay...in fact the only drug I've ever REALLY had a problem with stopping and/or moderation is marijuana which most people seem to think is akin to fairy floss.

ALL drugs have good and bad effects, pretty much ANYTHING on earth can be addictive.

ALL addictions ARE stoppable, some people unfortunately are fuck ups and they will find a way to be useless losers with or without drugs. Most people use drugs (all sorts) in moderation and would really like it if our $50 once or twice a year went to a legal business that pays tax rather than Melbourne's plastic godfathers and their bikie run speed labs.

What's China got to do with anything? Opium did NOT devastate China, massively one sided trade rules devastated China.

[porphyrian]

55. "You'll want to do it again and again".

Don't believe that sweeping generalization bullshit. Addiction is a different threshold for every individual, even with drugs known to be physically addictive. Never do any drug you don't trust or feel comfortable doing, but don't base your decision solely on the propaganda.

Anti-drug propaganda will say anything to convince people never to do drugs. Thus, that propaganda is often false. Pot isn't a "gateway drug." That's a flat-out lie. Anti-drug propaganda is the real "gateway" - as soon as an experimenting individual realizes they've lied about one thing, they wonder what other drugs they've been lied to about, making them overconfident about trying the more addictive and actually dangerous ones. Want to know the truth about drugs? Talk to doctors and druggies. The combined perspective will get you closer to the truth than any commercial or "personal experience" seminar.

[tridim]

62. That wasn't propaganda...

It was the guy offering it to me.

I'm certainly aware that addiction is relative, but the fact remains, opiates are physically addictive (unlike cannabis). It's brain chemistry. Some people can quit, most can't.

[porphyrian]

66. Right, but trying it once doesn't necessarily make you addicted.

Some people can do it a number of times before addiction sets in. Frequency of use and genetic predisposition have a lot to do with it. The statement I quoted is propaganda, regardless of who used it.

[Djinn]

72. unlike cannabis??

:rofl: What on earth makes you think cannabis isn't physically addictive? I've been a heavy smoker for over 15 years, these days I try to go without every few months because when I have it I smoke like a chimney. When I'm off it I get even less sleep than normal and can't eat, when I do sleep I wake up with night sweats.

Those are signs of physical withdrawl. Cannabis IS physically addictive, the only differential between pot and heroin is that people can generally grow their own pot and aren't going to overdose so the effects tend to be less noticeable to those on the outside. My addiction isn't going to show up in track marks or a trip to jail because I had to burg a house in order to pay for it.

[Art_from_Ark]

23. Ask Janis Joplin about heroin

If she were alive, she might have a different take on the "benign drug" theory.

[Asgaya Dihi]

25. It's not candy

but it's not as bad as it seems from what we see now either. Check post #13, it mentions a way of regulating the stuff. Check the number of deaths they had with people on the program for a more than five year period. None. Then look at the death rates we've had through the war on drugs listed in a chart in the same post.

People make a mistake to assume it's harmless or benign, but when properly used it's not all that dangerous either. It's mostly the contaminants, unknown purity, or ignorance that kills. There's valid medical use that's being restricted today due to hysteria and probably better ways to deal with our addicts as well.

[Art_from_Ark]

30. It's not something that a sensible person would get involved with

I saw its effects first-hand at my high school. At least one of the students I knew was addicted to that shit, and he nearly killed his mother because of it, so they sent his ass off to Synanon. I don't know what happened to him after that.

[Asgaya Dihi]

35. Yep

And that's why free use is a bad idea. Did you read the post? That wasn't free use, it was current addicts only and by prescription only, under medical supervision. If your friend had been on a program like that he would have been in contact with medical professionals who could have helped him instead of at the mercy of the street dealers.

The price has dropped sharply, purity has climbed, death rates have climbed sharply and not an inch of what we're doing now works or saves lives. It's pretty clear it's costing them. Looking for better options seems a pretty good idea.

[Djinn]

36. nearly killed his mother over his smack addiction?

Strange it tends to make people apathetic as shit not violent and angry. perhaps he was a fucked up kid who would have done that regardless of what drugs he was into? perhaps he took heroin in an attempt to alleviate his violent outbursts?

Either way I grew up surrounded by drugs, have buried friends, seen others in jail and have lost contact with some because unlike most they can't do "moderation", having seen the bad side effects of drugs on people with no self control is no reason to say to functioning adults what they can and can't put in their bodies.

I'm an adult, if I want to have a drink after work, it's not up to the government or my fellow citizens to say no - likewise if I want a joint, an e or a line of speed.

[Art_from_Ark]

44. I knew both the guy and his mother,

but I was not in their inner circle, so I do not know in intimate detail what their family life was like. The mother seemed like a typical mother, the kid seemed like a typical boy in junior high. But he seemed to change almost as soon as he entered high school. What brought on those changes, I have no idea, but everyone around him thought he was headed for trouble. Eventually it became known that he had developed a heroin addiction, aided by the local pusher who was another student. One night he grabbed a kitchen knife out of the drawer, and came very close to cutting up his mother. Whether he did that because of some bad smack, or he was arguing about his smack addition, or another reason, I'll never know. But the end results were, he had an addiction, he nearly killed his mom, and he was sent off to a treatment facility. After watching this drama unfold, and after hearing of Janis Joplin's rather untimely death at age 27, I have no idea why anyone would want to experiment with heroin.

[Djinn]

69. do you drink

because I know a shitload of people who became alcoholic fuck ups too, yet strangely I can have a few drinks after work all the time and still not beat/kill/steal as a result of it.

Janis Joplin btw would most likely have died from cirhosis at some point not too long after her 30th birthday anyway, she was a massive boozer.

[mike_c]

31. or alcohol, for that matter....

eom

[serryjw]

12. I agree on meth and crack

Don't know enough about opiates. But think one of the benefits would be is millions out of prison, in rehad and Babs Bush would lose a shitload of money on here prison investments!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

19. Life kills.

It's part of the job description.

[stevedeshazer]

28. I must point out:

Drinking Drano© is legal.

[Djinn]

32. funny

I've had methamphetamines plenty of times and I appear to still be alive.

[sweetheart]

6. We'd get over them

What would change?

Well, the police would become our friends once again, persons who only
defend us from crime and who do not fuck us over for our medicines.

The prison costs would drop radically and we would have more money
left for schools.

Drugs gangs would stop terrorizing every single inner city in america,
and gun crime would drop radically as the need to enforce gang turf
for drugs sales would end. So many who will be murdered and overdosed
will have their lives saved and their "right to life" upheld.

Drugs would come to have standard dosages and taxed market prices,
along with guidance on administering safely.

Drug driving would decrease as people would be able to take their
drugs when they arrive at their destination. (so many drugs driving
occurs as people can't take their drugs to visit a club a bar or
a dance, so they take them before and drive over so they don't get
caught, another way the laws create drug driving too)

The coherency test would replace blood testing as a way to determine
DWI, with novacaine, and all legal medications put on the same scale,
so that failure in reaction time is what is tested, not blood
chemistry.

Only 1 illegal industry would remain for smugglers, weapons running,
one that is much easier to monitor and track than drugs, one that
is morally deplorable much more than drugs are.

Drugs would become unhip, as we'd suddenly come to see them for what
they are, as we'd actually meet and hear from users, not as hated
people, but persons who are part of our extended family.

We would heal a rift of hate that drives 40 million americans in to
the subculture away from the prison state.. an act of healing not
to be underestimated.

www.leap.cc

[msongs]

10. too many government workers earn a living from illegal drugs &

all these people would lose their jobs, so drugs have to stay illegal.

otherwise I agree that use would drop, crime would vastly drop, resources could be spent on prevention and rehab instead of
prison guards, cops, attorneys, politicians, bureaucratic paper pushers and the like.

Msongs
www.msongs.com
batik & digital art
mugs and shirts

[High Plains]

7. The great fear is that more people would use more drugs.

Although it seems common sensical, there is no evidence to support that assumption. In fact, if you look at comparative drug consumption levels, there doesn't seem to be much correlation between harshness of the law and drug use.

Instead of the dreaded L-word, legalization, drug reformers these days prefer to talk about "regulation and control" and tax revenues.

There are numerous models for how it could work, ranging from the libertarian free market to corporatist to state controlled. The ideal situation would be to repeal the federal drug laws and let states experiment with different approaches, as they did after alcohol Prohibition.

What would happen under legalization? Many of the harms associated with drug use would remain, but those harms associated with drug prohibition would vanish. For instance, people would still fuck themselves up on drugs, still drive intoxicated, still do stupid shit--just like they do now. But there would be a dramatic reduction in overall social harm; no drug gang wars, no street corner dealing, no heavy-handed and intrusive police presence (or at least no more drug war excuse for it), no junkies ripping off your car stereo to pay inflated black market prices for drugs. We might have to lay off some cops and close some prisons, but I think it would be worth it.

[walldude]

9. The American farmer would have a huge cash crop

for one thing....

[Asgaya Dihi]

13. What's legal mean?

If legal means free use it would be a disaster. If legal means regulated it would be better than what we have now. What we have now is free use, the dealer sells to who they want to, where they want to, and at what quality and purity they want to. Regulated we make the rules, they are whatever we say other than automatic prison.

What I'd imagine is a commission of scientists to establish the science base for illegal drugs and to separate them into categories of risk. Ones like pot more available, ones like heroin by prescription only and to addicts only. We've had trial programs on some of them that have worked well, as we get room to work with some of the others we can fill in the gaps and find a policy based on science and experience rather than on ideology and hysteria, one that works.

Here's an example of a program with heroin that shows great results, if you'd like I could go over other aspects of the drug war as well in more detail.

http://www.dpft.org/heroin.htm

Just for contrast, the results for heroin the way we do it now. Prices have fallen sharply, purity has climbed as have death rates and use is hardly changed.

Trends in Average Heroin Prices (1981 - 2002)
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/heroin-prices.htm

Trends in Heroin Use (1979 - 2004)
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/nsduh/heroin.htm

Opiate Induced Deaths (1979 - 1998)
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/death/opiates.htm

Trends in Average Heroin Purity (1981 - 2002)
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/heroin-purity.htm

[Hippo_Tron]

16. Does flat-out legalization undermine the FDA?

Don't they have to technically approve of every drug that is sold in the country?

I think that decriminalization would help avoid this problem.

[Asgaya Dihi]

18. Doesn't have to

Like I said in the post above, legal means anything we want it to. Things can be run out of clean regulated clinics just as reasonably as they can out of a corporate owned for profit business, and I'd think with better results.

We don't have to allow advertising, marketing, lawsuits, or a profit motive. Legal means anything we want it to and there's no reason why the FDA couldn't supervise the clinics and enforce the rules against distribution of unlicensed pharmaceuticals.

With decriminalization we almost get to the same place, but not quite. If it's still technically illegal and there are fines, penalties, or forced rehabs then we never get rid of the dealers and get control ourselves. Remove the penalties and that frees tens of billions to regulate and educate instead. They come to us and deal with medical professionals who can guide them, there's little reason to risk distribution penalties and unknown quality and purity if they have a safe legal choice. We can cripple the criminal markets.

[demosincebirth]

17. I've been saying that for forty years.

The end result would be billions and billions of dollars (used on the war on drugs) to be used on social issues, such as health care, etc.

[High Plains]

21. The problem with decriminalization...

Several posters have said they support decriminalization, but not legalization.

I think there is perhaps some confusion of terminology, so let me offer up some definitions to make sure we're talking about the same things:

"Decriminalization" refers to removing criminal penalties for drug use and possession (of "personal use" amounts). The manufacture (or growing) and sale of drugs remains illegal. Decrim could mean tickets and fines, other administrative penalties, or no penalties at all for use.

"Legalization" refers to the distribution of drugs through a regulated market. Neither drug possession nor drug manufacture or sales would be a crime. Legalization can take any number of forms depending on how tightly you want to regulate a substance and who you want to control distribution.

Okay, that said, the problem with decrim is that it does not deal with the harm caused by the black market in drugs. All of the problems we associate with the drug war--drug gang wars, turf battles, acquisitive crime to buy dope at inflated prices, police as occupying army--would remain. It is prohibition and the black markets it engenders that create most of these problems.

Also, decrim just isn't logical. It's okay to have drugs, but not for someone to provide them to you? Huh? Pray tell, from where are the drugs to come?

[RagAss]

22. Who would control it and distribute it ??...The government?

You want this regime distributing drugs?..They'd poison the stuff and wipe out millions in one day....

Bad time in history for this discussion.

[skypilot]

54. That's what always comes to my mind...

...when this discussion comes up. Maybe some people have more vision than I do or maybe they are more optimistic, but I always end up picturing the worst elements of our government combining with the worst of the pharmaceutical companies and just royally screwing us one way or the other.

[High Plains]

57. Think of state-run liquor stores.

[kineneb]

24. drugs are not the problem, reasons for abuse are

People have always used and abused drugs. Rather than jail the users, they need to be treated for the cause of drug use- and most times there is an underlying problem that causes self-medication. Education should play a role in the prevention of abuse, as it does in the Netherlands: "Look over there at those poor, miserable addicts. You don't want to live that way, my child." I have just known too many people who use psychoactive drugs as a means for self-medication, when what they really needed was a proper mental health diagnosis. I could have easily been one of them.

America: land of dual-diagnosis...

[Djinn]

37. another enduring drug myth

they need to be treated for the cause of drug use- and most times there is an underlying problem that causes self-medication.

Whilst many people start using various substances to block out/get a break from crappy memories and experiences the OVERWHELMING majority of people start taking and continue to take drugs because they're fun, they make you feel good. To be honest I find the "poor soul had to turn to drugs" myth even more annoying than the "evil druggies" one.

[HornBuckler]

47. I've got to agree there

You are SPOT on. And I'll tell ya, I am addicted to nicotine and alcohol more than I'd care to admit. However, If I could legally get away with smoking some weed and not have to worry about my job as a result - my alcohol and nicotine consumption would plummet.


You are right though, I think, in that people do drugs because they are fun and life is fucked.

[kineneb]

48. but isn't that still self-medication?

"people do drugs because they are fun and life is fucked"

A way to numb the pain (and possible misery) of day-to-day living? Sounds like depression to me.

[ProfessorGAC]

49. Do You Know What Clinical Depression Really Is?

Wanting to escape now and then, because life is tough, is NOT the defintion of derpression. It is the definition of reality. No?
The Professor

[kineneb]

50. as a matter of fact- I do, and I just took my medicine

I have suffered from clinical depression for almost all of my life and have permanent memory loss from my 5 major "crashes". Oh, and my family has a history of mental health issues -great grandmother was a suicide at 27. At least I am still alive at 47, but there were times...

I could have tried to self-medicate, but I figured it would only make things worse. Some of my family tried that route. And I have seen my god-daughter's family wracked with drug abuse to mask bipolar disorder.

[ProfessorGAC]

51. Then You Should Know Better

You would then know, that not everyone who uses drugs to escape for an hour is depressed. And, since you have such background, you should be embarrassed to make such a sweeping statement.
The Professor

[Djinn]

70. no it sounds nothing like depression

being a bit moody and not satisfied is NOT depression.

Either way couldn't you apply that to all sorts of things, some people listen to music, some play sport others paint - maybe they're all just covering up the dissatisfaction they'd feel if they didn't do things that they enjoyed? well DUH!

I've taken most drugs under the sun, all of them because they were fun, nothing to do with self medicating

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

67. I never did coke to numb any pain or memories.

I did it because it's fun and I liked it. I never got addicted and it never killed me, even though I did have a sizeable habit for awhile.

[Alcibiades]

26. Legalization would be bad

For one thing, all the squares would start doing drugs. This would take half of the fun out of it.

My greatest fear is not hard drugs, addiction or the unemployment of federal workers. (The latter is especially funny. As if! Probably the number one crime in the federal system today is felon in possession of a firearm, which turned a lot of misdemeanor convictions at the state and local level to 10-year felonies at the federal level.) No, it's simply that pot saps your ambition, your motivation to get anything done. I smoked pot quite heavily for years, and had a good deal of fun, much of which I don't remember. The reason why I quit was that I didn't seem to be getting much of anything accomplished.

The life of the average person seems such that they (we) are ready to anesthetize ourselves in any way possible. Primarily, this is accomplished through massive amounts of television viewing, but legalizing pot would have the same effect. Today, social control of the masses is guaranteed because they (we) are at home watching Lost or Survivor or some shit. If pot were legal, we would be doing the same thing, but stoned. Nobody would ever get anything accomplished. I'm not mainly talking about work (though there's something to be said for that): I'm talking about people's personal lives. I'm not sure we would, as a people, continue to do the dishes, put on clean clothes, feed ourselves, etc.

Besides, really good pot has gotten quite strong nowadays. They have gotten quite good at producing a quality product. The last time I got stoned (which was many, many years ago, certainly past the statute of limitations) all I could do was sit and say things like: "Darg," "Arrummph?" and "Uuuuhhhh...." If such a mental state to become near universal, I would fear for the future of humanity.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

27. How come the in the Netherlands people aren't all...

sitting around saying "Darg," "Arrummph?" and "Uuuuhhh..." instead of being productive members of society? Let's face it, the fact that weed is illegal hasn't stopped people from smoking it and there are many productive "stoners" out there."

[Alcibiades]

53. Strange but true:

drinking beer out of tiny little glasses evidently makes you resistant to the effects of pot/hash.

It could also be the culture. Perhaps the Dutch are inherently hard-working and self disciplined. I'm not an authority on the Netherlands, having been there only about half a dozen times. I do think that, with our culture, we would overdo it.

It's true that you can be productive and a stoner--one of the smartest fellows I have ever met was basically stoned all the time, and yet did better in our Ph.D. program than I did. Being stoned was his normal state. I think his his degree of native intelligence and drive made it possible for him to compensate for the effects of his drug use. Probably more the exception than the rule.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

56. Alcohol potentiates weed. nt

[tridim]

65. Pot smokers would be much more social and motivated

if they could use their drug of choice in other places besides locked in their house with blinds drawn.

[Djinn]

73. we do

I tend not to sit inside with my blinds drawn, I smoke outside of my houses and no-one gives a shit, then again I don't live in the US which helps

[gulliver]

29. Half of the country would die.

Babies would starve in their cribs. The streets would be littered with corpses, half killed by overdose, the other half by psychotic, drug-addled slashers and thrill-killers. Every form of transportation would crash into every other form. Thank God for the drug laws put into effect in the 1900's. Before those laws life in America was hedonistic savagery, a cesspool of homicide and sexual wantonness. An unmixed, unfiltered jungle of bare-fanged id. Do we really want to go back to that?

[ProfessorGAC]

52. Are You Swift?

Nice piece of satire!
The Professor

[file83]

33. The U.S. Government would collapse from the lack of covert funding.

[rman]

39. If it's legal, it can be regulated

And there'd be far less crimes associated with illegal drugs trade.
Of course if we want it regulated properly, we need to get Big Farma out of the government.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Look at the Netherlands and switzerland for your answer

they first stablizied in the number of users, and now they have decreased somewhat.

That is what scares the rieght wing... if yuo legalize it, it will not be the end of the world, really

[AJ9000]

41. Prohibition of drugs is not working any better than prohibition of

alcahol did.

There would be a SHARP drop in crimes of many types (including violent drug gang turf fights) and prison incarcaration rates.

Drugs could be regulated and taxed w/ monies gained from it poured into treatment facilities for people who want out.

If we'd throw in some meaningful jobs in these crime ridden cities at the same time we'd really have something big.

I think it's important that we do it.

[leftofthedial]

42. virtually empty prisons

(given the strength of the prison lobby, that's enough to ensure it continues).

and much less death

[Hekate]

45. Amsterdam? But seriously, pot is long overdue to be legal and taxed

Grow your own or buy it from the case next to the cigarettes, complete with little government tax stamp... Treat it like wine-making: a certain amount produced by an individual for individual use is not taxed; what is sold gets taxed.

Marijuana has long been touted as a gateway drug. As nearly as any rational person can tell, the only thing it's a gateway to is prison. And a prison record will definitely ruin your life. There are still states in this nation where a pot bust will get you put away for years and years. Now THAT'S what I call criminal.

As for the rest, I don't really know, except two things. First, take the money saved by legalizing pot and build up effective rehab programs. They need to be lengthy, intensive, and planned around the natural recidivism rate -- it often takes addicts several tries to stay clean. Second, where possible, dry up the manufacture of legal products that get turned into genuinely ruinous drugs. Just slap the corporations silly for knowingly overproducing sinus medicines.

(Frontline did a great program on meth several months ago.... Anyone remember Quaaludes? The reason they are no longer the runaway addictive drug they used to be is the key ingredient became so heavily regulated that there wasn't any left for the black market. Not so with epinephrine, which is vastly overproduced relative to actual cold-product needs.)

That's it for my great ideas. Mostly I just want to see the prisons emptied of people who's only "crime" is addiction or smoking a little recreational pot. What we have now is inhumane and shameful.

Hekate

[Pushed To The Left]

46. Drugs should be treated as a health issue, not a criminal one. n/t

[aikoaiko]

58. I was gonna respond to your post, but I got high.

oh yeah

was gonna respond to your post
until i got high
was gonna respond to your post
but then i got high

I can't remember what I was going to write
and i know why (why man)
cause i got high
because i got high
because i got high

ladadada dadaa

[meganmonkey]

64. A lot less nonviolent people would be in jail

:shrug:

[Cleita]

68. It would be like alcohol and tobacco. You still have

abuse and addiction, but it would decriminalize the user and impose regulations on the producers who would be expected to pay taxes as well. There would be laws against endangering others while using or under the influence and hopefully programs that address addiction and abuse.

[benburch]

71. Blanket Legalization would improve the world a LOT.

We'd eliminate much of the violent crime, deprive the drug gangs of their livelihood, unburden the criminal justice system and the jails, increase border security, help dying people manage pain at the end of their lives, and actually lower the number of people who die from overdoses.

[upi402]

74. Treatment centers need to replace prisons FIRST, then plan

the controls and precautions. Pervasive public education would be good, I think.
Still, I heard that prohibition lessened problems related to alcohol. And it took too long for us to get the minimal treatment for alcoholisn that we have toay.