All drugs should be....

would you if it was legal?
I probably still wouldnt as long as I am in school, but once I got a job the story would probably be different...

Dude, haven't you heard? The war on drugs took place a while back. Drugs are gone! There's none to be found!

Jamie agrees wholeheartedly with The Blue Meanie.

And before anyone jumps to any conclusions Jamie does not supply drugs. He's takes 'em but doesn't supply 'em <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

J :cool:

[quote]Originally posted by Jamie:
<strong>Jamie agrees wholeheartedly with The Blue Meanie.

And before anyone jumps to any conclusions Jamie does not supply drugs. He's takes 'em but doesn't supply 'em <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

J :cool: </strong><hr></blockquote>

You scots are jacked up on heroin and talk about Sean Connery all the time anyway. What do you know?

[edit: on topic: I don't know. Addiction is evil and I'm afraid that some of these drugs are too addictive to allow people to get easily. Pot, OTOH, is different. BTW, I don't use it, but it's needlessly vilified.]

[for those who don't get the reference: <a href="http://www.addict.com/issues/2.08/html/hifi/Features/Trainspotting/" target="_blank">Trainspotting</a>. An Ewan McGregor flick that doesn't suck. One of my faves.]

[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: torifile ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by torifile:
<strong>

You scots are jacked up on heroin and talk about Sean Connery all the time anyway. What do you know?

</strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I wish I could afford to be jacked up on heroin all the time!!

Great film though.

J :cool:

Gore Vidal wrote an interesting essay in the 1970s about legalzing drugs (and why it would never happen), his proposal was contingent on a few factors.

The government would produce and distribute all of the drugs. Everything would be available over the counter at your local drug store, each clearly labelled with the effects, good and bad, in plain english, along with how addictive they are, and typical withdrawl symptoms and long term effects.

Basically, all the information your friendly neighborhood drug pusher leaves out when they're recruiting new clients.

The scale at which the government could produce and distribute drugs would allow them to be sold at prices that would far undercut any illegal dealer, thus reducing incentive to deal illegally as well as diminishing any sort of status symbol chic of drugs like cocaine, heroin, etc. And the proceeds from the sale of drugs could go towards education, fighting crime, the military, whatever needs funding. Not to mention, putting the $19 bil a year the gov't spends on The War on Drugs to better use.

Of course, it'll never happen, but it's a nice idea.

ciao,

michael

[quote]Originally posted by The Blue Meanie:<hr></blockquote>

<strong>....completely legalised. Yes, including the hard ones like heroin, cocaine, etc - who should be supplied on prescription to registered addicts. This would:

a) Largely remove organized crime from the supply chain overnight
</strong>

They'll just find a different crime to commit. How about exporting the "legal" and "clean" US drugs to countries where its still illegal?


<strong>
b) Drastically cut the amount of crime committed by addicts, who would no longer have to steal to get money for drugs to feed their habits
</strong>


Are you kidding me? If drugs were legal you'd have MORE people stealing to get money for them. You'd have bums begging for change so they could buy heroin instead of alcohol. I can't prove that more crimes would be commmitted but there's also no way you can prove that less crimes would be committed.


<strong>
c) Drastically cut the number of drug-related deaths, overdoses, etc, through the simple expedient of quality control. Most drug- related deaths are caused by poisonous impurities in illegally-supplied drugs and lack of medical supervision
</strong>

I'd like to see some proof that "most drug related deaths are caused by poisonous impurities". A heroin or cocaine overdose alone, even if its pure could kill you.

<strong>
d) Totally prevent people from being tempted into trying harder drugs by ruthless dealers supplying them with a bit of grass
</strong>

Beer is legal. People try harder alcohol to get drunk quicker. IMHO if harder drugs were legal it would give people all the more reason to try them.


<strong>
Think of the hundreds of thousands of hours of police time that would be saved for other things. Think of the number of young people who would no longer have their lives blighted by losing their jobs and/ or jail. Think of the satisfaction of finally winning The War on Drugs! Discuss
</strong>

Instead of drunk driving we'd have heroin or cocaine driving. Instead of worrying about our kids binge drinking they'll be binge snorting. They'll have a much easier time getting a hold of drugs. We'd have more addicts, more doped up people. IMHO we'd have more people in jail, more people losing jobs. We wouldn't have "won" the war, we'd have given in.

Legalizing ALL drugs is the dumbest idea I've ever heard.

Think of the product liability

The little yellow pill and the purple pill are legal... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> ?

[quote]Originally posted by Willoughby:
<strong>
They'll just find a different crime to commit. How about exporting the "legal" and "clean" US drugs to countries where its still illegal?
</strong>

This would fall under the same heading as export of prescription or over-the-counter drugs. We could choose to sign treaties stating our effort to prevent exports to keep good relations with our allies, but it's always the more restrictive country that bears the brunt of the burden of restricting imports. Witness our current massive efforts to conduct the War on Drugs vs. the lackluster effort from the Columbian government to prevent exports.

<strong>
Are you kidding me? If drugs were legal you'd have MORE people stealing to get money for them. You'd have bums begging for change so they could buy heroin instead of alcohol. I can't prove that more crimes would be commmitted but there's also no way you can prove that less crimes would be committed.
</strong>

No proof indeed. But there is ample evidence that the street price for some drugs is as high as 17000% of the equilibrium market price in the presence of competition and the absence of risk-based markups caused by its illegality. Very few people commit violent crimes to afford to pay for cigarettes, which are significantly more addictive than many of the drugs we classify as type 1.

<strong>
I'd like to see some proof that "most drug related deaths are caused by poisonous impurities". A heroin or cocaine overdose alone, even if its pure could kill you.
</strong>

How many packages of cocaine currently come imprinted with the proper dosage, and possible effects of overdose? How many dealers are subject to liability if the product violates the promises on its packaging?

<strong>
Beer is legal. People try harder alcohol to get drunk quicker. IMHO if harder drugs were legal it would give people all the more reason to try them.
</strong>

Alcohol is the only example we currently have for a drug that has been both legal and illegal in the United States. When it was prohibited, usage went up. When prohibition was repealed, usage went back down. The same may not hold for other drugs, but this is the only historical evidence we have at this point.

<strong>
Instead of drunk driving we'd have heroin or cocaine driving. Instead of worrying about our kids binge drinking they'll be binge snorting. They'll have a much easier time getting a hold of drugs.
</strong>

There are laws against both DUI and underage use of cigarettes and alcohol. Since you support the premise that laws can and do control behavior, why do these not suffice to cover other drugs?

<hr></blockquote>

-- ShadyG

ShadyG

I didn't say laws can and do control behavior, obviously thats not totally true. It is true for some of the people, some of the time. Obviously underage drinking and DUI's still occur even though they're illegal. Should we make them legal? Would we have more teens drinking or less? More people drinking and driving or less?

I know when I was a teenage a lot of my friends would have open bottles of alcohol in their cars. They were paranoid about getting caught, even though they weren't drinking heavily. If it was legal, they wouldn't even second guess having that open bottle in the car.

I feel that legalizing all drugs would remove the social stigma attached to drug use, and send a message of tolerance for drug use, especially to kids.

You might think it will solve some problems, but you'll just be faced with a whole slew of new ones.

People know the risks of drugs now, yet they still continue to use them. Warning labels on cigarettes and alcohol aren't preventing people from continuing to smoke, drinking while they're pregnant or even binge drinking. How many high school Phys Ed classes have you been through that told you how much alcohol was too much for your system? Yet some kids still drink till they're in a coma. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

The "war on drugs" has nothing to do with public health or "protecting our kids".

Look at the death tolls amongst Americans with legal drugs:

Tobacco: &gt;400,000 a year
Alcohol: &gt;150,000 a year
Prescription drugs (side effects, bad reactions etc): 110,000 a year.
Prescription drug abuse: 15,000 a year
Illegal drugs (heroin, cocaine, crack, meth etc)
around 5000 a year.
Marijuana: unknown, zero attributed.

Legal drugs' death tolls outnumber illegal ones by a factor of some 130:1

Keeping drugs illegal is one of the mainstays of the economy. The trade in illegal drugs is greater than that of motor vehicles and textiles combined, and this huge flow of capital ($1.5 Trillion annually) is laundered through banks and financial institutions, primarily American companies; it does not sit under the mattresses of Colombian gangsters, gaining mildew and no interest.

If the profit motive was suddenly removed by mass global decriminalization, and drugs were made available to users via clinics and pharmacies, legally, regulated, taxed (and regarded as a medical issue) then suddenly 15% of the flow of dirty capital through big financial institutions would dry up. A UN study of this some years back indicated that to legalize drugs would cause anything from a huge recession to the complete collapse of the world banking system. One bank (BCCI) were caught redhanded in one of those rare instances of enforcement of the law at the top levels. Of course the system in time would recover its equilibrium after the shake-up.

Imagine all that police time and effort going to catch real criminals, like thieves, burglars, rapists and murderers!! Imagine the gangbangers suddenly having to find honest work! Imagine the streets and inner cities getting a whole lot safer as the financial raison d'etre for the streetgangs was removed. Imagine the improvement in relations between police and inner-city communities minorities and drug-users. Imagine the increased safety on the job for law-enforcement personnel.

Imagine the howling and bleating of privately run correctional institutions like Wackenhut and CCA whose business relies on the incarceration of millions of petty drug offenders, at $40,000 per bed per annum! That is $$billions upon $$billions of $$throughput. Their corporate lobbyists would be bouncing round Congress like pacmen on crystal meth.

Imagine the loud noises from multinational corporations, which use the captive labor pool of hundreds of thousands of mostly petty drug "offenders" provided by prisons at virtually zero wages cost, to do work that would normally be done by Americans, (or should that be Chinese and Mexican?) in factories and workshops etc etc. Suddenly many of those prisoners, who have no business being in jail, would become unavailable for this equivalent of slave labor.

Imagine the shift in burden from being a tax liability, with $$billions being spent on this insane war which will never be won, to being a potential source of revenue, where the proceeds would go into educational and treatment programs!

America is hooked on traditional approaches, even if proven time after time to be uneffective or counter-productive, and any sensible/balanced approach to the drug situation will be seen by much of the public, who have been "educated" in reefer madness style regarding drugs, as "going soft on crime". Muttering about legalization/decriminalization is a death sentence for any politician.

No matter what, as long as the powers-that-be in the world of big business and Wall St continues to reap huge profits from the illegal drug trade and its spin-offs, then nothing will change.

Then there is the other (exhaustively documented) issue of US agencies (CIA et al) deliberately importing and distributing cocaine, thereby creating a large user base which in turn furnishes huge returns to the banks through which the proceeds go. And another current issue.....during the Taliban's rule in Afghanistan, opium production fell to nearly zero...now the Northern Alliance and its allies have "taken over" and a record harvest of opium is forecast as farmers go back to growing poppies. Expect huge amounts of cheap heroin to be flooding into the USA in due course....to get that drug-money rolling again and prop up those Wall St. profits.

As I said before, there is as much chance of legalizing drugs as the Pope converting to Hinduism. And if you buy into the official whitewash and BS that the "war-on-drugs" is to protect our children, then you are naive in the extreme. It's a war for and on behalf of narco- profiteers, bankers and gangsters using working class, uneducated and addiction-susceptible people, white, black, and brown as guinea-pigs.

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>The "war on drugs" has nothing to do with public health or "protecting our kids".

Look at the death tolls amongst Americans with legal drugs:

Tobacco: 400,000 a year
Alcohol: 150,000 a year
Prescription drugs (side effects, bad reactions etc): 110,000 a year.
Prescription drug abuse: 15,000 a year
Illegal drugs (heroin, cocaine, crack, meth etc)
around 5000 a year.
Marijuana: unknown, zero attributed.</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm glad you posted this, but I believe it makes exactly the opposite point you're trying to make. What it shows is that our legal drugs are our most dangerous. What if we made the illegal drugs legal - wouldn't we see many more deaths resulting from drugs?

What the chart seems to show is that drugs are unhealthy. So why make even more of them legal? It's bad enough that half a million Americans die each year from our legal drugs, so why make that number rise even more?

Another point about those numbers - tobacco is believed to be the leading cause of death, period. Not just among drugs. Its association with cancer and cardiovascular disease, our biggest killers, makes it the number one cause of death. And Americans smoke quite a bit less than other countries.

BTW, could you tell me your source? I have numbers that are totally in line with those, except those prescription drug numbers. They seem a little high to me. I also don't think marijuana is 0 - I believe those alcohol deaths include drunk-driving deaths, and so the marijuana deaths should also include accidents, and there are some.

I'm a big supporter of legalizing drugs. If a person should decide to destroy his or her body and mind, I have absolutely no problem with that. This is not sarcastic. Getting drunk once a month is about as much punishment as I care to exert on my system, though, so I don't think I'd be doing drugs if they were legal.

And yes, the postive effects already mentioned would likely surface.

[quote]Originally posted by Splinemodel:
<strong>I'm a big supporter of legalizing drugs. If a person should decide to destroy his or her body and mind, I have absolutely no problem with that</strong><hr></blockquote>

I have a huge problem with that. Someone being allowed to freely destroy his or her mind can severely impose on my freedoms.

Why do I have to feel less safe driving a car because on top of drunks I have to worry about tripped out or doped up drivers?


BRussell said it best. Look at those statistics. Legalizing those drugs would make them much easier to get a hold of, thereby increasing the amount of deaths because more people would be using them.

I also just love how everyone makes this about money. "The economy will improve". "Our taxes would be finally put to good use".
Please.

I need more crack heads in my neighborhood like I need a f'ing hole in the head.

[quote]I have a huge problem with that. Someone being allowed to freely destroy his or her mind can severely impose on my freedoms.<hr></blockquote>

So many people get into the drug scene because it was the cool thing to do, because it placed them within a culture, they responded to peer pressure to "be cool and hip", outside of the mainstream and outside of the law. There is a parallel with cigarettes; almost every kid you know probably had his/her first one "behind the gym at school etc" because it was (a)against the school rules, or (b)there was peer pressure etc, in the full knowledge that continued tobacco use will get them hooked, or kill them in any number of gnarly fashions. Same thing with alcohol. This still remains a big attraction for kids, this need to rebel; if the hipness label was stripped away from intoxicants by the universal acknowledgement, both in law and education that it is a medical problem, and kids could be convinced that drugs/alcohol are 'lame', then thats a start in the right direction. If people want to use drugs, or want to experiment with altering their consciousness, then no amount of draconian laws laws will stop it. People have been taking recreational drugs for thousands of years. The problems all started when laws were made to supposedly frighten people out of indulging, but in reality were designed to protect the interests of certain powerful corporations. DuPont (re. marijuana) is a classic case.

[quote]Why do I have to feel less safe driving a car because on top of drunks I have to worry about tripped out or doped up drivers?<hr></blockquote>

I hope you don't think that because drugs are illegal, it means that people don't use them, and people don't drive around smashed out of their skulls. The roads right now are jammed packed with people drunk senseless, or doped on a smorgasbord of over-the-counter drugs like nyquil or robitussin (anything which says on the label that "this may cause drowsiness: if affected do not drive or operate machinery). Tens of millions of people are on prescription barbiturates which can render a driver in a highly incapable state, specially when combined with a very small amount of alcohol. And yes, there are people driving around on LSD, ecstacy and methaphetamines, despite the laws.

If someone's going to get hooked, then they are going to get hooked: it's so much more to do with the character of the person than the nature of the drug itself. Some will go for whisky and a tiny percentage will go for heroin. If drugs are decriminalized, do you honestly think that suddenly, a whole lotta people will get up and suddenly say...."coooool maaaaan, lets go get smashed now because Uncle Sam says I can"??? Gimme a break.

It is universally known that cigarettes will probably kill you, and heroin will turn you into a junkie. Since we live in a society where we are constantly reminded that "You Must Take Responsibilty For Your Own Actions", then why does the Government feel the need to "nanny" people regarding the arbitrary choice of what dangerous substances we ingest, to the point of spending $billions to do everything from arming terrorists overseas to raiding peoples' homes here and locking them up by the millions in the process?

Then there is that grossest of double standards regarding the relative status of tobacco, the biggest killer of them all. R.J. Reynolds etc etc. market a product that kills nearly a half million Americans each year, (in terms of fatalities thats a World Trade Center scale disaster every 2.5 DAYS) and everybody sits back and says...thats OK, they are a big corporation, so it must be just fine. And whats more they contribute megabucks to the Republican-Democrat 'axis of whatever'. Sick, strange and baffling.

And, no I don't believe that tobacco should be illegal. The industry would be overtaken by a different set of gangsters who have even less ethical standards than the current batch of scumbags, (if that was possible), and would put tobacco addicts in contact with dealers who most likely would trade in other illegal drugs, just like many folk who are looking for some pot may well be offered harder drugs.

I agree with some of the arguments here that "it's my body, if I want to kill myself I should be able to." But what bothers me are the big companies marketing and profiting from selling drugs. It just doesn't seem ethical to profit from another's drug use. So, here's my (just decided) long-felt position on this:

All drugs should be illegal, including alcohol and tobacco, except:
1. They should be available by prescription or OTC with FDA approval and all the testing that entails, and
2. if you grow it and use it yourself, but don't sell it, that's OK too.

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>All drugs should be illegal, including alcohol and tobacco, except:
1. They should be available by prescription or OTC with FDA approval and all the testing that entails, and
2. if you grow it and use it yourself, but don't sell it, that's OK too.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

People would still be able to grow their own if it was completely legal without the limitations you suggest.

[quote]Originally posted by nonhuman:
<strong>People would still be able to grow their own if it was completely legal without the limitations you suggest.</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, but I don't want people mass-marketing and selling the stuff.

This way, the libertarian ideal of people doing what they want to their own bodies is upheld, but I think without the mass-marketing, less people would choose to do it, and noone would be allowed to profit from selling someone else deadly stuff.

[quote]Originally posted by The Blue Meanie:
<strong>

The assertion that legalising drugs would automatically result in more hard drug users does not quite hold water IMHO. Back in the 1960s, when heroin was legal in the UK, the number of users and addicts was tiny. Ever since the drug was made illegal, the number of addicts has grown expotentially, because the dealers, the pushers and organised crime in general have a massive incentive to get as many people hooked as possible. Take away the profit motive and why would they bother?</strong><hr></blockquote>

OH and the "legal" companies selling that crap wouldn't have an incentive to get people hooked?

Sure and the Tobacco companies never knew that smoking kills or that nicotine was addictive.

I'd legalise all drugs, make them prescription only, and imply long jail sentances for those who were caught outside their homes who were high. Yes I agree that people should have the choice whether to fvck themselves up. But if they step one foot outside thier front door, or affect anyone who is clean, then throw the book at em. Id designate a state, say Texas, where they sent all the people who got fvcked up, and keep them there forever. No politically correct BS. Its your choice, if you ****up, tough shit.

I dont take any form of illegal substance.

Personally I say leagalization with limits. For instance, imagine what would happen to the criminal drug trafficing chains if all of a sudden you could get better stuff, cheaper from the government?

I just think that its hyprocritical to deny drugs, especially the lower scale ones (Marijuana any one?) when your allowing:
alchohol, tabacco, coffee, and bloody refined sugar!

Hell, perhaps we should outlaw smiling, it releases dopamine

Also the use of drugs such as opium in medical conditions should be a must! Morphine is much more addictive, and they use it constantly.
Why give something chemically refined when you can give the natural product? Well control I suppose, its like the whole bacteriophage bit (including that all of a sudden a lot less money is being made by the pharmesudical companies).

I personally think all drugs should be legalized. Their illegality makes no sense to me. That said I think the ancilliary crimes related to drug use should be prosecuted with vigor. I also think drug use should be a priviledge. One should not be eligible for programs such as welfare or food stamps if they choose to indulge. Lastly the worst drug pushers of all are not the illegal drug dealers, but rather the pharmaceutical companies. If prescription drugs should only be used when a doctor makes a diagnosis and deems their use necessary than why do they need to be advertised on television?

[quote]Originally posted by trick fall:
<strong>If prescription drugs should only be used when a doctor makes a diagnosis and deems their use necessary than why do they need to be advertised on television?</strong><hr></blockquote> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Good one!

You ever see all the marketing crap doctors get from the drug companies? My wife works at a hospital, and it's amazing all the absurd little trinkets they give out - she likes to bring me home Viagra pens. She thinks it's funny for some reason.
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

Here's a good conspiracy for ya:
CHADD, Children and Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, is the "grass roots" organization that promotes ADHD as a diagnosis for parents with pesky kids, right? In their literature, they say "if your child was nearsighted, you'd get glasses," and they say that Ritalin is the best treatment for ADHD.

CHADD every year pushes the DEA to raise the quota on ritalin production, saying more children need it.

All that's fine, but guess who funds CHADD? Ciba-Geigy. Guess who Ciba-Geigy is? The Swiss pharm company that produces ritalin.

NICE one BRussle. Reminds me of something I read on American <a href="http://www.scn.org/news/newspeak/" target="_blank">Newspeak</a> about Daves ciggarettes (or something like that) who claimed that they didnt even want to be sold with those stuck up "corporate" cigarettes. Of course they were owned by Phillip Morris but...

If prescription drugs should only be used when a doctor makes a diagnosis and deems their use necessary than why do they need to be advertised on television?

Every one knows that you need to advertise perscription drugs, "the people have the right to know" damn it!
I think the actual correct wording is "WE HAVE A RIGHT TO SHOW IT TO THEM WHETHER THEY LIKE IT OR NOT!"

[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: The Toolboi ]</p>

I am amazed that people think hat because drug would be legal and only gotten by prescription that it would somehow make the drug dealers on the corner out of a job. There would still be a market for people who could not get the prescription and they would pay more for the drugs to get them. Then after that what? The are now addicted and can get it cheaper from the pharmacy? Your solutions are not solutions.

Imagine that. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

And many people who take drugs wouldn't want to go to their doctor anyway, because its their little secret that they don't want others to find out about.

Personally I would sentance to death anyone who sold illegal drugs of any kind. I would also make tobacco a Class A drug and ban it (and I do smoke myself). And anyone caught taking drugs would get an immediate jail sentance.

[quote]I am amazed that people think hat because drug would be legal and only gotten by prescription that it would somehow make the drug dealers on the corner out of a job. There would still be a market for people who could not get the prescription and they would pay more for the drugs to get them. Then after that what? The are now addicted and can get it cheaper from the pharmacy? Your solutions are not solutions.<hr></blockquote>

The current status quo is the worst possible scenario. The trouble is, politicians don't dare do anything about it because the public have this long held and deep-rooted (mis)perception that the laws against recreational drugs are there for the purpose of "protecting the young".

The drug laws are nothing more than a charter for and on behalf of organized crime, maintaining a massive and wildly inflated black market, where the resulting massive capital throughput furnishes the big banks and financial institutions with big moolah, while the kids get caught in the crossfire.

...should be sent to my address:

1600 Pennsivainly AVE
Washington DC..

:eek: :eek: :eek:

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>

The current status quo is the worst possible scenario. The trouble is, politicians don't dare do anything about it because the public have this long held and deep-rooted (mis)perception that the laws against recreational drugs are there for the purpose of "protecting the young".

The drug laws are nothing more than a charter for and on behalf of organized crime, maintaining a massive and wildly inflated black market, where the resulting massive capital throughput furnishes the big banks and financial institutions with big moolah, while the kids get caught in the crossfire.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I never took you for a Black Helicopter type SJO.

Personally I would sentance to death anyone who sold illegal drugs of any kind. I would also make tobacco a Class A drug and ban it (and I do smoke myself). And anyone caught taking drugs would get an immediate jail sentance.



Bring me my Victory Gin!
Seriously, killing addicts? Thats a little low isnt it?

There would still be a market for people who could not get the prescription and they would pay more for the drugs to get them

While I agree with you to a point, you must admit that a great deal of the drug laws these days prohibit some very good uses of drugs. eg. Opium for people in pain, Marijuana for people in situations where they could make truely good use of it (people who are in situations out of their control where they need an "upper"). Hell, pot doesnt even have that many negative side effects unless grossley over used (you end up the opposite of some one who takes too much coffee).

Also, in the case that you DID leagalize drugs (to an extent of course) the ammount of crime and abuse would be reduced. Its isnt a miracle cure, but its a step in the right direction. Evidence of this can be seen in most places where drug laws are more lax, eg. In Europe the legal drinking age is 16, but they have fewer accidents caused by wreakless drunk driving (kids getting smashed and racing down streets) and less of the "drink until you puke" mentallity.
No you wouldnt destroy the drug lords, but then again you couldnt destroy the ciggarette companies.

The REAL problem is if it becomes a private enterprise. While I think that using and making drugs should be lega, selling them should definatly NOT be so. The only source should be those under direct control by the government.
Otherwize you end up with stuff like the Tabacco giants.

I've thought about this for a few years, and one time I tried to come up with the craziest solution to all of this I possibly could. But it actually made a lot of sense, so I'll share it with you guys.

Legalized drugs. We should legalize all drugs like alcohol and tobacco have been, even cars are treated this way. You have to be of a certain age, and you have to register. Which brings me to my next point,

Registered drug users. It would be more like with cars/driving, as in you have to carry identification and obey laws (how they will be enforced I'm getting to), and you even have to take a short test to qualify for each type of drug you want to use. Just basic information like what to do in the event you O.D., what not to do, what your new "registered drug user citizenship" entails, basic information about safe and proper drug channels, etc. If you don't pass, you can't be a registered drug user.

Special Drug User Reservations. You know how we put the Indians (er, excuse me, Native Americans) on reservations? Well, the same sort of concept goes for drug users, but with a lot less funding and far more policing. Think of it as a very nice little community for drug users only. Once you go in, you can never come out. You cannot leave the community, but don't worry, everything you can want is inside of it. Even drug help programs.

Drug User Reservation laws. In the interests of the public and drug users on DURs, there are certain constraints on your rights when you become a registered drug user and migrate to a DUR. You cannot leave of course. You are monitored 24/7, everywhere you go. Not overtly, secretly in fact, but still, definitely well-monitored. You're also secretly given a tracking device, and a pain-inducing device (in case you attempt to escape). Not only that, but if you're a female your tubes are tied. We don't want any babies getting crack-addicted, nor do we need the gene pool stupid enough to become a registered drug user to be getting any larger.

Funding. Where's all the money for this gonna come from? Well, the government is going to sell some of the drugs, and there are going to be drug taxes imposed, which will pay for a lot of the DUR-related expenses. Where would all of the drugs come from? Any confiscated drugs would be donated to the DURs, and drug companies would be allowed to make strictly-monitored manufacturing centers within DUR cities.

Marketing. What kind of idiot would want to live in a jail like that? Well, you'd be surprised. Most of the bad stuff would actually be secret, but you'd consent to all of it in a huge, all-encompassing agreement you have to sign to become a licensed drug user. And of course after you go into the community, it is made wholly difficult to communicate with the outside world (as if you'll be concerned with that anyway, with all the yummy drugs you'll be stuffing in your body), and when you actually do so, no one will believe drug users' outrageous claims about DURs because they are, well, high and wasted and hallucinating. Not that I'd expect a lot of sympathy for them from the general public. In any case, tons of people would fall for it, and we'd be able to solve a large portion of problems that exist today.

Initial DUR population. Repeat drug users/offenders/dealers would become the starting population of the DURs, after being investigated and tested to verify they are a real drug user, and after being reviewed by a board of non-drug-using citizens as a non-productive drug-using member of society.

Drug exceptions. Of course, alcohol and marijuana will not be included as "drugs" as far as registered drug users go, at least not initially but tobacco will be due to second-hand smoke being a danger to the non-drug-using population. All hard drugs (rock, lsd, speed, heroine) will definitely be included however.

Grace period. There will be a 6-12 month period in which if you are caught with drugs or someone who knows you reports you as a drug user, where you'll be welcome to join the DUR community, or just learn about it. There will be websites, hotlines, informational pamphlets, and educational videos about drug user licensing and DUR communities. Television commercials, radio spots, magazine/newspaper ads, and web banners will advertise Drug User Reservations as being hip, cool, and the easiest/safest/most legal way of trying out new drugs. During this time, you won't *HAVE* to go to a DUR or register if you are caught with/dealing/using drugs, but you will almost definitely be forced to learn about doing so. Eventually you'll want to join, anyway. After that period, you'll have to choose between freely registering as a drug user, or extremely harsh punishments coupled with large fines.

So there you go. Registered drug users and communities, drug taxes, safer drugs, safer streets and non-drug-user communities, a cleaner gene pool, and a better economy.

No, I don't seriously believe this could ever happen or would even work. I just was bored one day and talking with a friend and we planned this all out. It didn't sound so crazy at the time, because it didn't start out being quite so crazy.

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
The drug laws are nothing more than a charter for and on behalf of organized crime, maintaining a massive and wildly inflated black market, where the resulting massive capital throughput furnishes the big banks and financial institutions with big moolah, while the kids get caught in the crossfire.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think some people need a mandatory "IMHO" pasted before each of their posts.

I'm sure the CIA is reading this right now.