The war on the war on drugs

The Reporter ^ | feb 3, 2012 | jimshi

[microgood]

You might want to think about that again.

Ok, 95%. After all, that stuff is expensive.

[microgood]

It’s always other peoples fault. An uncorked and sour whine

This is coming from someone who blames drug users for the actions of drug dealers? Seriously?

[Mr. Jeeves]

We are spending 40 billion plus a years to throw pot heads in jail.

But if it saves one conservative child from a lifetime of listening to the Grateful Dead, it's all worth it. /s

[Pipe Dog]

Cold frosty beer is my preference but I do know people that are pot smokers. Compared to the dope smokers I know, there are worse criminals roaming the halls of congress.

[donna]

But it’s cheaper. and, less overdoses.

[donna]

Would you hire any of them to drive your daughter’s school bus?

[donna]

No need. Locking up criminals is good enough.

[TigersEye]

It’s cheaper to give them all a free ride than to let them make their own way in the world? That makes no sense. I don’t know where you get the idea that there are less overdoses in prison but what difference does that make?

[rottndog]

Drugs are readily available in prison, which proves the utter futility of drug prohibition in the first place.

If they can’t keep drugs out of PRISON (a true police state), how can anyone believe drug prohibition in a FREE society will be any more successful?

[donna]

Who do you think feeds, clothes and shelters drug users now? They may as well be in prison where the medical care will be cheaper.

[TigersEye]

Most of them feed, clothe and shelter themselves. Obviously.

[jpsb]

They are only criminals because you call them criminals, other then smoking pot they do nothing illegal. Just think how many fewer people we would have to incarcerate if we just let them smoke pot.

[count-your-change]

It may be difficult to comprehend but without drug USERS there would be few drug DEALERS.

One hand washes the other, one hand is willing to murder wholesale and the other hand really doesn't care as long they can get what they want.

[microgood]

Would you hire any of them to drive your daughter’s school bus?

Not if they were going to smoke pot and drive the bus. If, on the other hand, they did at home on their own time it is really no different than alcohol. I would not want anyone to drink before they drive the bus either.

[count-your-change]

Same argument, make it legal and it's not a crime by definition.

Drug traffickers would no longer traffic in drugs without the partnerships of the users.

[microgood]

It may be difficult to comprehend but without drug USERS there would be few drug DEALERS.

That is not difficult to understand at all. And if pot was legalized there would not be any pot dealers either. There would still be drug dealers, but instead of having to deal with 25 million users, they would only have to deal with 2 or three.

One hand washes the other, one hand is willing to murder wholesale and the other hand really doesn't care as long they can get what they want.

They just do not make the connection. They are doing something they enjoy and are not directly harming anyone. And it depends on where you live as well. In Washington state where I live, all of it is either grown here or imported from Canada. No violence there.

And it is not like the DEA gives a hoot how many people are getting killed in Mexico. In fact that the DEA head actually said that the increase in the murder rate was a sign that the efforts in Mexico were working. And even with all the money they spend, by their own numbers they catch less than 1% of the pot coming into this country.

Since the only way to stop usage would be to drug test everyone in the country every day and throw the Constitution in the waste basket, I think it makes sense to legalize pot and concentrate efforts on the more harmful ones used by a lot less people.

When Nixon started the war on drugs, the panel he appointed to come up with the regulations (lead by a very conservative governor from Pennsylvania) recommended not outlawing pot because there were too many users, it it a fairly mild drug, and that it would breed corruption and lack of respect for the laws, which has come true.

[Downinthedixie]

One wouldn’t buy from dealers. Why not go to a convenience store?

[reaganaut]

n00b for your watch list.

[TheOldLady]

Count-your-change is pointing out the common fallacy in your thinking. You are saying that in order to eliminate a crime, all we have to do is make it legal.

If that were true, then in order to eliminate all crime, we have only to eliminate all laws. The syllogism is not true, so your argument is deeply flawed.

[Old Sarge]