Why We Should Legalize Drugs

[MadtownPacker]

Wisconsites know little of meth as it is a relatively small problem for the state. In 05, 90 labs were busted in Wisco as compared to over a 1000 in Iowa. GO HAWKEYES!!!

What else are they gonna do? Watch the corn grow? :P

But I seriously would like to know the thoughts of a couple of hardcore users. Who knows, maybe they don't want it legalized. Maybe that's why I was disappointed to hear you aren't a tecato.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Wisconsites know little of meth as it is a relatively small problem for the state. In 05, 90 labs were busted in Wisco as compared to over a 1000 in Iowa. GO HAWKEYES!!!

What else are they gonna do? Watch the corn grow? :P

But I seriously would like to know the thoughts of a couple of hardcore users. Who knows, maybe they don't want it legalized. Maybe that's why I was disappointed to hear you aren't a tecato.

I'm no tecato, I'm a Tecate.

[Freak Out]

From our friends to the north, or south east from my perspective:

PUT THE GANGS OUT OF BUSINESS: LEGALIZE DRUGS

Michael C. Chettleburgh
Special to the National Post

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Childhood and adolescence should rightfully be a time of love, learning and life. But for thousands of young Canadians, their journey to adulthood is marred forever by street-gang involvement, which almost always means an active role in the massive business of illicit street drugs, too.

I have seen and heard of too many cases to count demonstrating the connection between gangs, drugs and youth. Consider these: eight-year-old gangsters on BMX bikes dealing crack and crystal meth in North Winnipeg; 14-year-old gangsters on the west coast, driving prepaid rental cars for $100 per eight hour shift, delivering drugs through widespread dial-a-dope operations; 16-year-old First Nations gang members travelling from big cities to remote James Bay communities selling "dime bags" of marijuana cut with oregano for $50, five times the going street price in the south; young Ontario and Quebec ecstasy cooks making colourful $20 pills of uncertain composition for the urban club scene, thus generating massive profits for their street-gang masters; and murder after countless murder of young men in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, a majority associated with street gangs and the drug trade.

Many allocate blame to street gangsters for this sorry state of affairs -- the idea being that if it weren't for these aggressive and money-hungry "pushers," we wouldn't have such a problem. However, this reasoning is incomplete: It fails to consider the demand generated by millions of Canadians of all ages who, at least once this year, will act on their desire and make a back-alley purchase of an illicit drug.

Millions -- that's right: So says Health Canada and the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse in their March, 2005 Canadian Addiction Survey. Despite prohibitory laws, societal scorn, unsavoury gangster salesmen, the risk of debilitating addiction and dubiously doctored substances, millions of willing consumers are supporting thousands of willing sellers -- street gangsters, that is -- across the country. And with consumption rates for many illicit drugs having doubled or tripled in the past 15 years, it's clear that the drug problem, and therefore the gang problem, is about to get a lot worse.

This should come as no surprise to anyone concerned about street gangs in the dozens of Canadian communities where they are active. If you're young, poor, marginalized, inadequately supervised, surrounded by violence and neglect in crumbling communities, and consider your economic prospects to be stark or non-existent, the pull of the gang can be quite magnetic. The street gang offers troubled youth a family, a contrived identity, a perverse form of "love," a gritty rite of passage, protection and excitement. Perhaps most compelling, it offers young gangsters the chance, however dangerous, to make money, and quite possibly lots of it, in a giant and growing street tournament called the drug trade, lubricated by demand from everyday Canadians.

The street gang and associated drug trade problem in Canada won't be solved by a get-tough, criminal-justice-system response, nor should we expect young homies to just say no. Look to the United States for proof of this. Over the past 30 years, the U.S. has employed the most aggressive and expensive anti-drug and -gang measures ever conceived. In the process, 800,000 street gangsters under the age of 21 have been created. Moreover, more than two million Americans now call prison home, the majority of which are young black and Hispanic men. About half of them are serving time for relatively minor drug offences. Today, things are so bad that the FBI has made street gangs and the underlying drug trade their number one priority, even over domestic terrorism. The failure in this campaign is a testament to the abject failure of the U.S. war on drugs and gangs.

Canada has the opportunity, but perhaps not the courage, to employ a different approach on street gangs. To be sure, we must tackle the underlying socioeconomic causes of the street-gang problem, including poverty, income inequality and persistent discrimination. At the same time, we must equip our police agencies with the resources they need to take out the hardcore 20% or so of all street gangsters who are responsible for the majority of Canadian street violence. We must spend much more money on early prevention and diversion, because this is not a problem that we can arrest our way out of.

Finally, we need to embark upon drug legalization, which will starve gangs of their principal oxygen supply and serve to upset the attractive risk-reward proposition that every new gangster now faces.

Rather than continue to incur only the massive costs of the drug trade -- addictions, policing, corrections and loss of life -- why not also capture the massive financial benefit (over $400-billion in North America alone), which we presently reserve for the exclusive enjoyment of street gangs and other criminal organizations?

Like other drugs we deem socially acceptable -- nicotine delivered in cigarettes and alcohol for instance, which collectively kill about 50,000 Canadians every year -- we ought to control the production and distribution of illicit drugs and tax their consumption.

Let's start with cannabis, Canada's favourite drug by far. This move alone will generate a multi-billion dollar fiscal dividend that can be used to cover the costs we now incur despite prohibition, enforce more stringent laws against sales to minors, and invigorate Canada's meagre prevention and harm-reduction initiatives. This step would also go far to restoring public trust in law enforcement, which has been diminished by their involvement in imposing futile drug laws.

There is no contradiction in being pro-drug-reform yet anti-drug use. In its present form, the war on drugs is both bad public policy and a fight we cannot win. All drug users should have the right to harm themselves if they so choose. Recognizing that we cannot eliminate their demand, I would much prefer that drug users purchase their wares in a controlled setting rather than from young gangsters, who effectively control what gets sold, where it gets sold and to whom it gets sold.

Absent a robust underground trade in drugs, just how are Canada's estimated 14,000 street gangsters going to make sufficient money to offset the dangers inherent in the job of gangster? Sure, they may turn to other criminal enterprise, but there is not another in the world so alluring, so profitable, so vibrant, than the drug trade. Drug reform will not solve the drug problem entirely. But it will go a long way to solving what has been termed the "drug-problem problem," which is the pull of the gang and its associated crime and violence. - Michael C. Chettleburgh is one of Canada's foremost authorities on youth gangs. Since 1991, he has run a consultancy specializing in criminal justice issues. He researched and wrote the 2002 Canadian Police Survey on Youth Gangs for the federal government. He has also developed street-gang awareness training programs for law enforcement agencies and is a keynote speaker at many conferences on youth crime. His new book is Young Thugs: Inside the Dangerous World of Canadian Street Gangs.

mc@astwood.ca

[GrnBay007]

Well, i have witnessed the opposite. Your "witness" is a very limited experience..as is mine.

More to the point, find me your stats that work for your position.

As for meth....it is still an improvement. And, if you wanna argue 30 days..PROOF please. And, who said we couldn't hold them longer? Rehab in jail is for the most part a joke. Again, locking people up for a medical problem is foolish.

How do you know my proof as a witness is a very limited experience? I think you see and learn a lot ....real life learning, not stats....in 15+ years of "witnessing".

I don't know of too many treatment facilities that go beyond 30 days. 30 days is not nearly long enough when you are dealing with some hardcore drug addictions. I'm sure there are some rehabs out there longer than 30 days but then you are talking really big bucks....treatment for the elite, not your average jo blow from the streets dealing with an addiction. Those out there dealing with a drug addiction who also have criminal offenses more than likely aren't working jobs (if they are working at all) that offer insurance. So without being on welfare, medicare, disability or the county agrees to pick up the cost these people can't even afford treatment. Maybe the system....the way treatment is not even an option for some should be your argument. If the drug addict stays on the street and continues to commit crimes to support their habit, the only option is to lock them up eventually.

Wisconsites know little of meth as it is a relatively small problem for the state. In 05, 90 labs were busted in Wisco as compared to over a 1000 in Iowa.

Yep!! Now you are seeing where I'm getting my "limited" experience from.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Well, i have witnessed the opposite. Your "witness" is a very limited experience..as is mine.

More to the point, find me your stats that work for your position.

As for meth....it is still an improvement. And, if you wanna argue 30 days..PROOF please. And, who said we couldn't hold them longer? Rehab in jail is for the most part a joke. Again, locking people up for a medical problem is foolish.

How do you know my proof as a witness is a very limited experience? I think you see and learn a lot ....real life learning, not stats....in 15+ years of "witnessing".

I don't know of too many treatment facilities that go beyond 30 days. 30 days is not nearly long enough when you are dealing with some hardcore drug addictions. I'm sure there are some rehabs out there longer than 30 days but then you are talking really big bucks....treatment for the elite, not your average jo blow from the streets dealing with an addiction. Those out there dealing with a drug addiction who also have criminal offenses more than likely aren't working jobs (if they are working at all) that offer insurance. So without being on welfare, medicare, disability or the county agrees to pick up the cost these people can't even afford treatment. Maybe the system....the way treatment is not even an option for some should be your argument. If the drug addict stays on the street and continues to commit crimes to support their habit, the only option is to lock them up eventually.

Wisconsites know little of meth as it is a relatively small problem for the state. In 05, 90 labs were busted in Wisco as compared to over a 1000 in Iowa.

Yep!! Now you are seeing where I'm getting my "limited" experience from.

You are limited because you are one person. Just as i am. Anecdotally evidence from one person is limited. Sorry, but it is.

Treatment: Again, more of your opinion about length of rehab. Without any facts. Again, you miss the point. 30 is better than jail, and futhermore, no one is saying 30 and done...there still is aftercare,etc.

But, you are right, longer than 30 is expensive, but not as expensive as locking them up and returning them to the streets without solving the problem. Also, most people in prison for drugs aren't hardcore addicts. Check your facts.

You just don't seem to understand the difference tween treating this as a medical issue vs. criminal. I'm sorry that you don't get it. Perhaps if we change the paradigm. If tommorow cigs are illegal, would you advocate locking up those who smoke? Nicotine is addictive, as is meth. If people steal to support their nicotine habit would you suggest we lock them up?

Lastly, plenty of people don't have to hit rock bottom to solve their problems. Some do, some don't. Many addicts are relieved when busted..they know their lives are out of control but are powerless to stop.

The War on drugs, like all the wars the government perpetuates (war on crime, war on poverty, war on X) is designed to take away your liberties, suppress dissenting opinion, and give your money to the government.

What is even funnier is that the war on drugs has most of american duped. Illegal drugs aren't the worst health issue in this country. Tobacco and Alcohol are much worse. And, obesity is the worst. This country has historically always had the same percentage of illegal drug users..be it cocaine, pot, heroin, uppers, downers, or meth.

What I can't understand is your blind adherence to a policy. A policy that has never worked and that isn't supported by bright people across the political spectrum (Milton friedman, William F. Buckley, George Schultz on the conservative side lest you think it is just those hippy, dippy liberals). Drugs have been in this country forever. Again, read De Tocqueville's Democracy in America, written in the 1800's and see what he observed. Go back and research all those opium based medicinal cures of the 1800s. Coca Cola had cocaine in it.

Locking people up, making them felons is a complete unjustice and is designed to disenfranchise voters. The United States is the only "democracy" in which people who have served their sentences can still lose their right to vote.

My mom use to say that if you think the sky is red, but everybody else is telling you the sky is blue, then it is best to believe it is blue. Well, the rest of the world is telling us the sky is blue. But, I guess you will continue to believe it is red.

[GrnBay007]

Treatment: Again, more of your opinion about length of rehab. Without any facts. Again, you miss the point. 30 is better than jail, and futhermore, no one is saying 30 and done...there still is aftercare,etc.

Yes, my opinion (based on a lot of experience)...that's what this is, a discussion board. I already stated my views on stats. Anyone is able to find the stats they need on the net to support their views. I'm just stating my views from lots of experience. And again, your average drug user is not going to prison right from the start. There is court ordered treatment, probation....all kinds of chances to get this problem under control before prison actually becomes an option. If a drug addict has multiple chances for treatment and they choose not to take advantage of it, knowing what the end result could be, then where do you draw the line? Eventually they just need to be locked up to keep them from committing criminal activity in order to support their habit.

You just don't seem to understand the difference tween treating this as a medical issue vs. criminal. I'm sorry that you don't get it.

LOL, I'm sorry, but I really don't. A person dealt the hand of receiving the news they have life ending cancer, or any other disease which will end their life or leave them impaired is medical. They never had the choice to say yes or no. People that use drugs have the choice...from day one! That's one area I'm impressed with of the things brought about with this war on drugs....educating people and educating them young. The DARE program has done wonderful things to educate the young. How many people on this site can say that when they were young the whole drug issue was just something you weren't supposed to do, but really didn't know why? Now they are learning that meth and crack are out there and hey, if you try it....maybe even just once, you could ruin your life? I understand some people are more prone to develop problems with alcohol and drugs due to environment and/or genetics....but then again that's where education comes in.

Lastly, plenty of people don't have to hit rock bottom to solve their problems. Some do, some don't. Many addicts are relieved when busted..they know their lives are out of control but are powerless to stop.

Completely agree.

The War on drugs, like all the wars the government perpetuates (war on crime, war on poverty, war on X) is designed to take away your liberties, suppress dissenting opinion, and give your money to the government.

What is even funnier is that the war on drugs has most of american duped. Illegal drugs aren't the worst health issue in this country. Tobacco and Alcohol are much worse. And, obesity is the worst. This country has historically always had the same percentage of illegal drug users..be it cocaine, pot, heroin, uppers, downers, or meth.

I don't have a problem with these labels. You can label it a war on tabacco, alcohol, drugs or obesity. My thoughts are if you do these things whether they are legal or not it is your choice.....YOUR CHOICE......but then you should be prepared to suffer whatever consequences there may be and not try to blame society or the government.

And I get the impression you think I'm against treatment for drug addicts ...and I'm NOT. More power to the person that admits they have a problem and wants to get help. But if that same person goes through treatment facility after treatment facility and continues to use drugs and commit crimes, then it begins to look like they are only using rehab as an excuse to keep them from going to prison, and then yes, they need to go to prison in an attempt to keep the streets safer for everyone.

[the_idle_threat]

Tyrone, you can spend all day saying the people who disagree with you don't know anything about this subject, and it won't make it so.

You've made it clear that you have no real experience with the subject.

Obviously you and I are not going to agree, so I guess we're at a stalemate. I'm going to leave it at that.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tyrone, you can spend all day saying the people who disagree with you don't know anything about this subject, and it won't make it so.

You've made it clear that you have no real experience with the subject.

Obviously you and I are not going to agree, so I guess we're at a stalemate. I'm going to leave it at that.

Where have I made it clear? I said for the past 20 years. Sorry, but i'm not in my 20s.

Furthermore, i live in a state that has way more meth than most.

Stalemate: Sure. It will always be that way when one side refuses to actually try and learn about the subject. Come back when you've actually read some of the literature I suggested. Or when you can counter the percentage of americans on drugs historically doesn't change. But, i'm confident that all i will hear is the rustling of the wind.

[Tarlam!]

Stalemate: Sure. It will always be that way when one side refuses to actually try and learn about the subject. Come back when you've actually read some of the literature I suggested. Or when you can counter the percentage of americans on drugs historically doesn't change. But, i'm confident that all i will hear is the rustling of the wind.

I actually agree so much with this, it hurts.

The conservatives are not willing to concede 2000 years of idiocy, and as such, we will be faced with drug crime until the end of the world.

The problem is SO easy to fix, too.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Treatment: Again, more of your opinion about length of rehab. Without any facts. Again, you miss the point. 30 is better than jail, and futhermore, no one is saying 30 and done...there still is aftercare,etc.

Yes, my opinion (based on a lot of experience)...that's what this is, a discussion board. I already stated my views on stats. Anyone is able to find the stats they need on the net to support their views. I'm just stating my views from lots of experience. And again, your average drug user is not going to prison right from the start. There is court ordered treatment, probation....all kinds of chances to get this problem under control before prison actually becomes an option. If a drug addict has multiple chances for treatment and they choose not to take advantage of it, knowing what the end result could be, then where do you draw the line? Eventually they just need to be locked up to keep them from committing criminal activity in order to support their habit.

You just don't seem to understand the difference tween treating this as a medical issue vs. criminal. I'm sorry that you don't get it.

LOL, I'm sorry, but I really don't. A person dealt the hand of receiving the news they have life ending cancer, or any other disease which will end their life or leave them impaired is medical. They never had the choice to say yes or no. People that use drugs have the choice...from day one! That's one area I'm impressed with of the things brought about with this war on drugs....educating people and educating them young. The DARE program has done wonderful things to educate the young. How many people on this site can say that when they were young the whole drug issue was just something you weren't supposed to do, but really didn't know why? Now they are learning that meth and crack are out there and hey, if you try it....maybe even just once, you could ruin your life? I understand some people are more prone to develop problems with alcohol and drugs due to environment and/or genetics....but then again that's where education comes in.

Lastly, plenty of people don't have to hit rock bottom to solve their problems. Some do, some don't. Many addicts are relieved when busted..they know their lives are out of control but are powerless to stop.

Completely agree.

The War on drugs, like all the wars the government perpetuates (war on crime, war on poverty, war on X) is designed to take away your liberties, suppress dissenting opinion, and give your money to the government.

What is even funnier is that the war on drugs has most of american duped. Illegal drugs aren't the worst health issue in this country. Tobacco and Alcohol are much worse. And, obesity is the worst. This country has historically always had the same percentage of illegal drug users..be it cocaine, pot, heroin, uppers, downers, or meth.

I don't have a problem with these labels. You can label it a war on tabacco, alcohol, drugs or obesity. My thoughts are if you do these things whether they are legal or not it is your choice.....YOUR CHOICE......but then you should be prepared to suffer whatever consequences there may be and not try to blame society or the government.

And I get the impression you think I'm against treatment for drug addicts ...and I'm NOT. More power to the person that admits they have a problem and wants to get help. But if that same person goes through treatment facility after treatment facility and continues to use drugs and commit crimes, then it begins to look like they are only using rehab as an excuse to keep them from going to prison, and then yes, they need to go to prison in an attempt to keep the streets safer for everyone.

Sorry, but you are wrong. There are mandatory minimums. Judges have no discretion when up against those laws.

You are just plain wrong on that. Let's take a look at the facts.

U.S. Sentencing Commission reports that only 5.5 percent of all federal crack cocaine defendants and 11 percent of federal drug defendants are high-level drug dealers. This is because the most culpable defendants are also the defendants who are in the best position to provide prosecutors with enough information to obtain sentence reductions - the only way to reduce a mandatory sentence. Low-level offenders, such as drug mules or street dealers, often end up serving longer sentences because they have little or no information to provide the government.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission and the Department of Justice have both concluded that mandatory sentencing fails to deter crime. Furthermore, mandatory minimums have worsened racial and gender disparities and have contributed greatly toward prison overcrowding. Mandatory minimum sentencing is costly and unjust. Mandatory sentencing does not eliminate sentencing disparities; instead it shifts decision-making authority from judges to prosecutors, who operate without accountability. Mandatory minimums fail to punish high-level dealers. Finally, mandatory sentences are responsible for sending record numbers of women and people of color to prison.

More than 80 percent of the increase in the federal prison population from 1985 to 1995 is due to drug convictions.

In 1986, the year Congress enacted federal mandatory drug sentences, the average federal drug sentence for African Americans was 11 percent higher than for whites. Four years later, the average federal drug sentence for African Americans was 49 percent higher.

Wow. What an amazing coincidence.

Between 1986 and 1996, the number of women in prison for drug law violations increased by 421 percent. This led U.S. Bureau of Prisons Director Kathleen Hawk-Sawyer to testify before Congress, "The reality is, some 70-some percent of our female population are low-level, nonviolent offenders. The fact that they have to come into prison is a question mark for me. I think it has been an unintended consequence of the sentencing guidelines and the mandatory minimums."

An academic study of the Massachusetts prison population published by Harvard in 1997 found that nearly half of the offenders sentenced to long mandatory-minimum terms for drug related offenses had no record of violent crime. The study concluded that jailing nonviolent drug offenders does not cure drug addiction and that the laws were "wasting prison resources on nonviolent, low-level offenders and reducing resources available to lock up violent offenders".

Medical: As I asked, but never answered, if we make tobacco illegal are you in favor of locking those offenders up? Of course not. We wouldn't think of locking up alcoholics. A drug is a drug. And, addiction is a disease.

Education: I agree. That is my whole point. We spend very little on education. Education is a central tenet of harm reduction.

War: If you don't understand how language shapes our views, then i really can't help you. I guess reading animal farm didn't sink in. Language totally shapes perception..and perception is reality.

Safe: Most drug users aren't violent criminals. Furthermore, the sentence should match the crime. There is something wrong when a drug crime has a tougher sentencing then killing someone.

[GrnBay007]

Sorry, but you are wrong. There are mandatory minimums. Judges have no discretion when up against those laws.

How can I be wrong when this is the first you've brought up mandatory minimums? Of course I know there's mandatory minimums out there but those aren't used for your average user in possession of drugs. One of the most popular is distributing drugs within 1,000 ft of a school. That buys you a mandatory minimum here of 10 yrs. The use of that phrase is also misleading. Your mandatory minimum sentence is 10 yrs. and they are required to serve 85% of the sentence. Hmmm....how many parents out there are going argue someone selling drugs near a school should do a 30 day rehab stay rather than get some prison time? I bet not many.

You then go on to cite a lot of Federal sentencing stats and that is generally speaking much different than State laws and sentencing. Federal sentencing is historically much harsher than State sentencing.

Medical: As I asked, but never answered, if we make tobacco illegal are you in favor of locking those offenders up? Of course not. We wouldn't think of locking up alcoholics. A drug is a drug. And, addiction is a disease.

We do lock up alcoholics if they break the law and drive drunk. That's gotten pretty harsh itself. 2nd OWI a 2 yr. prison sentence. 3rd OWI a 5 yr. prison sentence and a felony on your record.



I think we should just agree to disagree on this matter. You've gone off in so many directions I'm not even sure anymore the drug user/abuser you are referring to when you say rehab works better than prison.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Sorry, but you are wrong. There are mandatory minimums. Judges have no discretion when up against those laws.

How can I be wrong when this is the first you've brought up mandatory minimums? Of course I know there's mandatory minimums out there but those aren't used for your average user in possession of drugs. One of the most popular is distributing drugs within 1,000 ft of a school. That buys you a mandatory minimum here of 10 yrs. The use of that phrase is also misleading. Your mandatory minimum sentence is 10 yrs. and they are required to serve 85% of the sentence. Hmmm....how many parents out there are going argue someone selling drugs near a school should do a 30 day rehab stay rather than get some prison time? I bet not many.

You then go on to cite a lot of Federal sentencing stats and that is generally speaking much different than State laws and sentencing. Federal sentencing is historically much harsher than State sentencing.

Medical: As I asked, but never answered, if we make tobacco illegal are you in favor of locking those offenders up? Of course not. We wouldn't think of locking up alcoholics. A drug is a drug. And, addiction is a disease.

We do lock up alcoholics if they break the law and drive drunk. That's gotten pretty harsh itself. 2nd OWI a 2 yr. prison sentence. 3rd OWI a 5 yr. prison sentence and a felony on your record.



I think we should just agree to disagree on this matter. You've gone off in so many directions I'm not even sure anymore the drug user/abuser you are referring to when you say rehab works better than prison.

Again, you miss the point. Mandatory minimums are used for simple possession. I live in Arizona. Meth users are eligible for jail or prison for first- or second-offense possession.

Crack cocaine is the only drug for which the first offense of simple possession can trigger a federal mandatory minimum sentence. Possession of 5 grams of crack will trigger a 5 year mandatory minimum sentence. "Simple possession of any quantity of any other substance by a first-time offender-including powder cocaine-is a misdemeanor offense punishable by a maximum of one year in prison." (21 U.S.C. 844.)

Possession of more than 5 grams of cocaine can trigger an "intent to distribute" penalty of 10 to 16 years in prison. To put that in perspective, many people buy an 8 ball (3.5 grams) or 2 to party with.

In Arizona, possession of nine grams of powder cocaine or 750 milligrams of cocaine base is considered "trafficking", with a sentence of 5 years prison. A judge may sentence an offender to a minimum of 4 years in prison if special mitigating factors are present, or a maximum of 10 years if aggravating factors are present. An offender convicted of trafficking is not eligible for suspension of sentence or release until the offender has served the sentence imposed by the court.

And, let's not even talk about the sentencing disparity tween crack and coke. Basically it is lock up poor black people vs. keeping white people out of jail, “distribution of just 5 grams of crack carries a minimum 5-year federal prison sentence, while for powder cocaine, distribution of 500 grams – 100 times the amount of crack cocaine – carries the same sentence.”

Schools: No one is advocating selling drugs around children. However, if you were smoking pot or doing blow in your house and you are near a school..you shouldn't have that law applied. Good luck on that. The law is also applied to religious buildings as well.

You can argue all day long about violent, stealing drug offenders should be in prison, but in reality, most people in prison are not that.

Furthermore, locking people up does nothing to change the associated ills of drug usage..aids, hep c, etc. This has been studied for 15 years and has shown that needle exchange doesn't lead to more usage, lowers diseases..and probably most importantly provide an access point for a large disadvantaged group to health and other services. You aren't going to be able to find out what is going on with drug users if you never see them.

US studies have found that needle and syringe provision can decrease HIV-risk injecting behavior by up to 73%.

If you want a safer, better country for your children, the current policy we have isn't going to do it.

[Merlin]

My personal thoughts:

1) Pot is the same as alcohol. The both turn to THC in the brain, have the same affect and both can be addictive if abused.

2) Prohibition didn't work, for a reason. People were going to do it anyway.

3) I don't know the statistics for alcoholism or drug abuse because those numbers can vary depending on who is applying the tag. From personal experience, a hard core alcoholic will drink anti-freeze and a hard core drug user will snort Ajax to get a fix. The difference? The hard core alcoholic is doing it legally. The cost of the treatment? The same. I don't think there would be anymore or less people in treatment if it were legal. Or more or less driving while under the influence of anything. Those that are going to do it and drive will pay whether it's legal or not.

4) The government is always looking for ways to tax the shit out of us. Legalize it and then tax the shit out of it like everything else.
5) Other controlled substances should not be legalized because a lot of them are highly addictive after one or two uses and can take you down a path or hardship almost immediately. Once again, "pot" smokers don't all turn to hard core drugs, in fact, most of them don't even try the other stuff because of the dangers and costs.

6) IT WILL GET BANNED ANYWAY BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME AS SMOKING AND WE ALL KNOW THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S LEGAL TO SMOKE, IT ISN'T LEGAL TO DO IT ANYWHERE!!!!

Friggin Nanny State BS laws....

How is this going to stop the ones who then become the one who sell cheap, black market etc....

There is a black market for alcohol and tobacco now. So what's one more? At least the majority will be taxed...

[Merlin]

My personal thoughts:

1) Pot is the same as alcohol. The both turn to THC in the brain, have the same affect and both can be addictive if abused.

2) Prohibition didn't work, for a reason. People were going to do it anyway.

3) I don't know the statistics for alcoholism or drug abuse because those numbers can vary depending on who is applying the tag. From personal experience, a hard core alcoholic will drink anti-freeze and a hard core drug user will snort Ajax to get a fix. The difference? The hard core alcoholic is doing it legally. The cost of the treatment? The same. I don't think there would be anymore or less people in treatment if it were legal. Or more or less driving while under the influence of anything. Those that are going to do it and drive will pay whether it's legal or not.

4) The government is always looking for ways to tax the shit out of us. Legalize it and then tax the shit out of it like everything else.

5) Other controlled substances should not be legalized because a lot of them are highly addictive after one or two uses and can take you down a path or hardship almost immediately. Once again, "pot" smokers don't all turn to hard core drugs, in fact, most of them don't even try the other stuff because of the dangers and costs.

6) IT WILL GET BANNED ANYWAY BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME AS SMOKING AND WE ALL KNOW THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S LEGAL TO SMOKE, IT ISN'T LEGAL TO DO IT ANYWHERE!!!!

Friggin Nanny State BS laws....

Although this shouldn't make a difference to anyone who knows me, I don't smoke and I have never done any illegal drugs of any kind. Not even pot. Wasn't sure if I had much creditability because it looked like I was a user and a smoker. I am just furious that the nanny states out there feel the need to tell us how to live our lives.

[packinpatland]

My personal thoughts:

1) Pot is the same as alcohol. The both turn to THC in the brain, have the same affect and both can be addictive if abused.

2) Prohibition didn't work, for a reason. People were going to do it anyway.

3) I don't know the statistics for alcoholism or drug abuse because those numbers can vary depending on who is applying the tag. From personal experience, a hard core alcoholic will drink anti-freeze and a hard core drug user will snort Ajax to get a fix. The difference? The hard core alcoholic is doing it legally. The cost of the treatment? The same. I don't think there would be anymore or less people in treatment if it were legal. Or more or less driving while under the influence of anything. Those that are going to do it and drive will pay whether it's legal or not.

4) The government is always looking for ways to tax the shit out of us. Legalize it and then tax the shit out of it like everything else.
5) Other controlled substances should not be legalized because a lot of them are highly addictive after one or two uses and can take you down a path or hardship almost immediately. Once again, "pot" smokers don't all turn to hard core drugs, in fact, most of them don't even try the other stuff because of the dangers and costs.

6) IT WILL GET BANNED ANYWAY BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME AS SMOKING AND WE ALL KNOW THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S LEGAL TO SMOKE, IT ISN'T LEGAL TO DO IT ANYWHERE!!!!

Friggin Nanny State BS laws....

How is this going to stop the ones who then become the one who sell cheap, black market etc....

There is a black market for alcohol and tobacco now. So what's one more? At least the majority will be taxed...

Ok, that's a fair point.