[#3Fan]

Oh, crystal meth. My pardon. I agree that crystal meth, "redneck cocaine", is a genuinely evil drug. It's manufacture is also a direct consequence of Drug Prohibition.

No, they manufacture because they know how. If everything was legal except meth, they would still manufacture it because they like it.

Commercially, Crystal Methamphetamine is an economically non-viable drug, were it not for the economics of Prohibition. Like "white lightning" bathtub gin, Crystal Meth will not survive decriminalization in any significant quantity.

Yes it would.

Frankly, the economics just aren't there for it without the artificial profit margin.

Then they would make it themselves.

It was a Joke.... until the Government itself started shipping Top-Secret DOD specifications to him. (Which is precisely why he burned the specs... unlike his Government, he possessed Common Sense).

Uh-huh.

It is the Law, sure... but the current state of Law is not the Ethical Question that a Christian considers when he is asked to make Law (as I am, indirectly, at every Election).

As sure as it should be illegal for someone to have a hydrogen bomb in their garage in a city, hard drugs should stay illegal. You never did answer my question: Should the police be allowed to go into someone's house to remove a hydrogen bomb in a city?

For the sake of those murdered by people on hard drugs, you should pray for it if that's the kind of stuff you pray for.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

No, they manufacture because they know how. If everything was legal except meth, they would still manufacture it because they like it.

People "know how" to manufacture "white lightning", but very few people do... because less dangerous substitutes are readily available.

The fact is, your beliefs are contraverted by the evidence. The manufacture of both crack cocaine and crystal meth are indisputably prohibition-era phenomena -- encouraged by the economics of prohibtion, just like their white-lightning, bathtub gin "soul-mate".

The culture helps determine the setting of drug use, but so do the laws. Prohibitions enhance the dangers not just of drugs but of the settings in which they are used. The relationship between prohibition and dangerous adulterations is clear. So too is its impact on the potency and forms of drugs. For instance, Prohibition caused a striking drop in the production and sale of beer, while that of hard liquor increased as bootleggers from Al Capone on down sought to maximize their profits and minimize the risks of detection. Similarly, following the Second World War, the enact- ment of anti-opium laws in many parts of Asia in which opium use was traditional--India, Hong Kong, Thailand, Laos, Iran-effectively sup- pressed the availability of opium at the cost of stimulating the creation of domestic heroin industries and substantial increases in heroin use. The same transition had occurred in the United States following Congresss ban on opium imports in 1909. And when during the 1980s the U.S. gov- ernments domestic drug enforcement efforts significantly reduced the availability and raised the price of marijuana, they provided decisive incentives to producers, distributors, and consumers to switch to cocaine. In each case, prohibition forced switches from drugs that were bulky and relatively benign to drugs that were more compact, more lucrative, more potent, and more dangerous.

In the 1980s the retail purity of heroin and cocaine increased, and highly potent crack became cheaply available in American cities. At the same time, the average potency of most legal psychoactive substances declined: Americans began switching from hard liquor to beer and wine, from high-tar-and nicotine to lower tar-and-nicotine cigarettes, and even from caffeinated to decaffeinated coffee and soda. The relationship between prohibition and drug potency was, if not indisputable, still readily apparent.

Consider the lesson here. Ethical debates aside, the principal objection to all drug legalization proposals is that they invite higher levels of drug use and misuse by making drugs not just legal but more available and less expensive. Yet the late-nineteenth-century experience suggests the oppo- site: that in a legal market most consumers will prefer lower-potency coca and opiate products to the far more powerful concoctions that have virtually monopolized the market under prohibition. ~~ Prof. Ethan A. Nadelmann, Princeton University

As sure as it should be illegal for someone to have a hydrogen bomb in their garage in a city, hard drugs should stay illegal. You never did answer my question: Should the police be allowed to go into someone's house to remove a hydrogen bomb in a city?

Dunno. Last time that Libertarians announced that they were building a nuclear bomb in downtown New York City, the Federal Government promptly shipped them Top-Secret DOD specifications, and the City of New York tried to give them money. This seems non-sensical to me, but who am I to argue with the infallible wisdom of Government?

Liberals use the same arguments against Guns, you know. Someone who owns a gun just might be the next Beltway Assassin!! If it will save even 11 lives and 3 wounded, it justifies general Confiscation, right??

The argument is invalid because neither Guns nor Vodka nor Opium pipes are equivalent to hydrogen bombs. You can't contain the externalities of a hydrogen bomb; but you can contain the externalities of Guns, Vodka, and Opium by simply staying in your house. Most do; some do not (which is why we have Drunk Driving and Public Intoxication laws).

All of which is irrelevant to the core public policy issue: "In each case, prohibition forced switches from drugs that were bulky and relatively benign to drugs that were more compact, more lucrative, more potent, and more dangerous." ~~ Prof. Ethan A. Nadelmann

In short, it may be true that "the more potent, the more some want it"; but on balance "in a legal market most consumers will prefer lower-potency coca and opiate products to the far more powerful concoctions that have virtually monopolized the market under prohibition."

This is a historical fact demonstrated with all sorts of intoxicants, from nicotine to opiates, time and time again. If you want to reduce "hard" drug usage, eliminate the economic incentives to package and market the "hard" variety. "In a legal market most consumers will prefer lower-potency coca and opiate products to the far more powerful concoctions that have virtually monopolized the market under prohibition."

Historical fact.

For the sake of those murdered by people on hard drugs, you should pray for it if that's the kind of stuff you pray for.

Prayer for those murdered by Drunk Drivers does not lead me to believe that Home-Invasion to confiscate vodka is a "christian" behavior, or to support a Prohibition which would inevitably lead to the home-manufacture of alcohol which is "more compact, more lucrative, more potent, and more dangerous".

Try as I might, I can't make myself see...

"Please Lord Jesus, bless and sanctify my breaking into this guy's home and putting a gun to his head so he won't smoke opium"...

...as being something I could morally Pray to God.

And if I as a Christian can't morally Pray for it...
...Then I as a Christian I can't morally Vote for it.

As always, JMHO. Best, OP