An Excellent Question

[SimpleSimon]

http://villagevoice.com/issues/0302/ridgeway.php


<center>Lawmaker Trips on Legalizing Drugs

Burton's Blunt</center>

At a December 12 hearing of the House Government Reform Committee, Representative Dan Burton, Republican conservative from Indiana, raised the prospect of legalizing dope.

"I wanna tell you something. I have been in probably a hundred, a hundred and fifty hearings like this at various times in my political career," Burton said. "And the story's always the same. . . . And every time I have a hearing, I hear that people who get hooked on heroin and cocaine become addicted and they very rarely get off of it. And the scourge expands and expands and expands. . . . But there's no end to it. . . . Over 70 percent of all crime is drug-related. . . . And we continue to build more and more prisons, and we put more and more people in jail, and we know that the crimes that they're committing are related—most of the time—to drugs. So I have one question I'd like to ask all of you, and I think this is a question that needs to be asked. I hate drugs. I hate people who have to—who succumb to the drug addiction, and I hate what it does to our society. It's hit every one of us in our families or friends of ours.

"But I have one question that nobody ever asks, and that's this question:

What would happen if there was no profit in drugs? If they couldn't make any money out of selling drugs, what would happen?"

[gone away]

legalizing drugs simply would increase the number of people pissing their lives away... and there's still money being made by someone because people's lives are so depressing they need to alter their consciousness

it's not a good idea.. or a good question... 'mind expanding drugs' are almost all addictive and hinder your ability to be a cog in the machine of life...

tho that 70 percent number is daunting...

what do i know.. i'mma go now ;)

[zim]

you cant make it not profitable. You can make it profitable to different people, corporations that would exist in the drug trade... but thats about it.

[SimpleSimon]

Originally posted by ZiM
you cant make it not profitable. You can make it profitable to different people, corporations that would exist in the drug trade... but thats about it.

Sure you can make it non-profitable. Sell it through state run bottle stores.

[Asmodeus]

Question is are we concerned with the general populace or those few(thousands) who actually are the ones who make things happen- thus the ones who don't do drugs because they don't want to?

I am, and always have been, all for legalizing drugs, pot, or whatever else is out there. The people who want it will get it. Why not tax the hell out of it in state supported legislation- state to state per se?

How many people do you know who have never tried weed or other drugs for the sole reason that it was illegal? I know of none. People will do what they will- legal or not.

Heh, my nickle's worth.

[morgana]

<font color="lime">i watched a tv show a long time ago about european countries who were trying a different approach to heroin addiction in order to cut down on street crime associated to it. they gave people prescriptions for it! yep, that's right- if you were addicted to heroin, you had to register at a clinic, take some counseling courses, and they would supply you with clean needles and heroin.

apparantly, the first six months it was in operation, it cut down on burglery, robbery, and mugging 50%.

so yes...any type of legalization would benefit the majority of society. and if it ends up that some huge corporation ends up making millions off of it, what of it? i'd rather see a drug company that has to pay taxes and employ american workers get rich off of it than some colombian drug cartel. </font>

[MAC]

70% of crime is related to drugs......whY?

because drugs are illegal

if you are
A) a criminal by vocation anyway, then drugs are a part of the game
or
B) on drugs then you are a defacto criminal

fact: the war on drugs hasn't stopped drugs
fact: th ewar on drugs has grown th epenal system and th ejustice systsem and put a tax burden on all working memebers of the US
fact: we don't know WHAT would happen in the US if we "'DECRIMINILZED" it

make drugs legal is stupid
more regulation to keep track of yada yada yada

decriminilze it and turn the health part over to the FDA
(there's plenty of room for beurocracy in that all by itself)

follow me here
in day sof old you took your bucket to the gin joint and got beer that you took home
you bought a twist of tobacco or a bag or choppe dleaves and made your own chew and cigarettes.

why did they stop that?

oh yeah....market

doesn't it seem insane to buy a bag of marijuana and roll your own when you could buy a pack of smokes ready to go in any flavor you like?

next point:
remember back in th e80's when some ppl where taking tylenol off the shelves and injecting them with poison?
would you take a tylenol from a container on a store shelf that had NO foil seal?

why would you let some bald guy with a pony tail hand you a couple pills in a baggy?

drug culture needs a culture shock

[Venus]

Ok, say they legalize drugs. Then what? I'm driving my daughter home from daycare one evening, and some guy driving his SUV (or any other car) thinks he sees little green elephants chasing him so he doesn't notice the red light. Runs right through it, and now me and my daughter both either dead, or in the hospital. Legalizing drugs just means someone has to go and set limits, other laws, and make sure those are followed. Driving while drunk is illegal too, but millions of people die in car accidents involving drunk drivers. Ok, I just lost my train of thought...
Anyhow, legalizing drugs is just gonna create more laws of other kinds. On the other hand, it's gonna create more jobs for people to make sure these laws aren't broken. Eh, I dunno what I'm trying to say.

[morgana]

<font color="lime">i think you need to clarify your reasoning. as you already stated, millions are killed each year in drunk driving accidents. that's nothing new. i think that stricter laws are needed in order for people to stop. if you look at a lot of drunk driving cases, people are repeat offenders and never see jail time. that's an entirely seperate issue, however.

let's look at your post again: do you think that people who decide to do drugs don't drive now? they're already breaking the law by using the drugs. do you think that they don't drive while under the influence because they're afraid of being pulled over?</font>

[Koliedrus]

Legalization of any drug requires enforcement of some government agency or another. Hence the term "LEGALization".

As it is, a lot of previously perscription drugs are not only being advertized, they've found their way over-the-counter.

Some sort of regulation is certainly necessary. I'm no chemist and neither are you. I can't sit here and tell you that it would be beneficial to make one available over the counter as opposed to another.

Question is, would you trust government enough to tell you that heroin or acid has been judged to be safe enough for public consumption?

There will always be abusers. Opening the doors to the candy store, in my opinion, is hardly the answer.

[kwyjibo]

There should be no "legalization" of these types of drugs. The concept you're looking for is called decriminalization and involves the government doing nothing at all. Try it, just once. One time, on one solitary subject...try getting the governmnet the fuck out of it and see the miracles that can spontaneously occur when individual human beings are left to act of their own volition, without directive or threat of government force, and without the alternative of "paternal" governmental guidance of any kind.

Every response so far on this topic has something in common. Every response appears to be from someone who is so conditioned to expect the government to regulate every part of their lives that they don't consider alternatives.

When Pavlov rang the bell, did the dog salivate? Or did Pavlov ring the bell because the dog salivated? Somebody was sure as hell conditioned.

If drugs are decriminalized and rendered non-existent to federal authority, who then would profit from the instantly devalued substances? There would be instant savings to taxpayers in the form of the dissolution of interdiction agencies and materials, and 30 years (yes, 30 YEARS) of War on Drugs would come to an end with the pathetic whimper it so richly deserves. Then the government could continue its War on Poverty and War on Terror.

Every crime committed by a junkie is still a crime--all you'll have done is not make him a criminal for being a junkie. By every rational standard of behavior, what a person puts into his or her body is none of your goddamned business. Nor the government's.

I'm going to stop right there. My salient points have been made, and no one ever listens to anything after the Federal Authorities have been removed from the equation. You want to know what a far worse addiction than drugs is? Being pathetically, tragically, horribly, cripplingly, addicted to allowing someone else to be responsible for You.

It's loathesome.

[Cruise Director]

Utah has one of the highest rates of methamphetamine use among women. It's a stat I'm pretty proud of. These meth junkies like to frequent my store and try and rip things off that they can A.) Try and return for money B.) Sell to pawn shops for money or C.) Trade for drugs or money from other meth heads. The police are absolutely useless in my battle to keep merchandise on my shelves and not in the pockets of the junkies.

So I educated myself. I track what they steal, when they steal it and their general "shopping" patterns. I train my associates on things to watch for and how to deter these thefts. I don't waste my time calling the cops anymore; I just tell the druggies to get out of my store and not come back. I give them a heads-up when they walk in my store that I know who they are and what they are after.

Do I think decriminalizing the process will work? No. The stuff will still cost money. I still won't hire somebody using the stuff and neither will anyone else. They still need money to buy the junk and they will still resort to crime to obtain the needed cash to hit the hash bar.

[MAC]

I think they should "legalize" food

right now no food is "legal" and 11% of adolescents are "obese" and 24% are "over weight"

we need a war on food to stop illegal food use and save the lives of millions of american children

cruise, forgot to tell mention that he'd flat fire anyone who shows up drunk too.

[Escape Artist]

Heh...here I am, just put out a cigarette, had a few beers today, and a year or two ago I smoked a joint. Here's to making stuff illegal - surely it will stop people from doing it.

Venus, do spare us the "Think of the children!" shit, please. I've been drinking for the better part of 7 or 8 years illegally and the times I've wrecked I was stone cold sober. I am one of the people you worry about slamming into you while jacked up on something, being in that cheerful little age group. You have a helluva lot more people sober, stupid, and inattentive - on the roads, in your schools and everywhere else - to wring your hands together over and throw your bible at when they slight you than drug users.

Like kwyjibo said, just decriminalize the shit...be it selling, production, etc...use existing laws if people are stupid enough to drive or kill one another, be cognizant enough of your environment to avoid them (yeah, laws are going to save you after you're dead from a criminal, I'm sure) and live a happy and drug-free life, if you so choose.

Lastly, if you've ever picked up a beer or smoked something - shut up. You're as much a drug user as those pesky crackheads. :)

[Koliedrus]

I get part of it. I understand how prohibition didn't stop alcohol usage but instead spawned bootlegging and control of the substance not by government but by organized crime groups.

In essence, if it's "criminalized", the criminals receive the profits. If it's decriminalized, the price will drop, the cartels will find substantially less operating income and the Clydesdales will welcome a new "Bud" :)

I suppose I'm more concerned about the word "drug" as a catch-all term. Aspirin fits. So does Viagra and Clarititin. Vitimin C, Prozac, Percodan, Vallium, Marijuana...

I'm not under the impression that anyone is suggesting a blanket-decriminilazation of every drug in the pharm although I do understand the generalizations made. "Food" was a stretch of topic ;)

Some drugs are more dangerous than others. Each has its intended purpose. All have side effects. If you want to pick nits, beer and cigs can be seen as slowly acting chemical weapons.

Let's look at Amsterdam. I couldn't think of a more appropriate model. I came across this:

http://www.netaxs.com/~sparky/policy/dutch-stats.html

Now, several new threads here seem to deal with cultural diversity.

I put it to you that the Dutch population's method of dealing with recreational drugs could not be seen as a world-wide solution. As it's been stated before, the U.S. has enough landmass to accomodate many cultures. Cross-section the country into four equal areas and you might see that some groups envision the U.S. as their Amsterdam.

Decriminalization of mind altering drugs is not the answer.

I'll give you this. Marijuana is just a little bit stonger than alcohol. In that, I'd say it's time for another repeal of prohibition.

Hmmm. I actually had to think that out!

[dub]

The underground would go farther underground.

Those who didnt wish to register with the state to grow weed,
only to have to turn around and give half their profit away at the
end of the year, would simply do it the 'illegal' way, without a
lisence from the state.

There will always be a black market, and the govt always gets their cut.