It is not; any more than consuming heroin is illegal. Possession of heroin is illegal, possession of rotgut, insofar as I know, is not, on account of the overturning of the Prohibition Amendment.
Nice screed, however, it is just trying to blow away my point with smoke and mirrors. You know we don't report rotgut poisoning in the local newspapers on a weekly basis anymore, don't you? Virtually all the alcohol that is consumed nowadays is produced under licensed conditions, which is far safer, and you know this also, don't you?
Could you kindly explain why Holland's parents and teachers haven't rioted in the streets in the last couple of decades to correct this?
You know what happens when you "assume" don't you? Don't make the mistake of assuming that parents and interested citizens haven't lodged their protests of government policy.
I'm totally unsurprised to hear that there are Hollanders who disagree with Holland's policies--how much cheese does that cut? There are US citizens who loudly protest the US's policy--with about equal effect.
Answer the question asked--They've had decades to change their minds--why haven't they?
I see. So when you quote somebody, it's the "facts". When I quote people on the front line, and not some fat, liberal beauracrat behind a desk, then it's "bloviating". Yeah, right. LOL
I didn't quote "somebody" I quoted the DEA's Judge-Advocate, charged with determining the scheduling of marijuana w/respect to the controlled substances act, and the chief scientist of the Nixon Commission on Marijuana. The unscientific opinions of a handful of cops who get paid to hate marijuana is hardly a reasonable comparison. Furthermore--what I am quoting is the expensive summary judgement of a year or more of comparative evaluation of scientific findings by a panel of conservative scientists, appointed by prohibitionist governments hellbent on proving marijuana harmful.
Look. You are obviously very committed to your cause of making drugs legal and free.
It's not my cause, and I am not overly commited to it. I'm just opposed to stupid behavior, like putting kids in jail over something that's clearly less harmful than cigarettes or alcohol, by at least an order of magnetude.
You are not happy when the facts show what a disaster your policy would be, and is, in action.
Really--what Swiss drug disasters would you be referring to? Heroin was available by prescription in Britain in the 50's and 60's--were there heroin riots then? What huge social cost, that you can actually measure, accompanied the Alaskan experiment with de-criminalizing marijuana? If something isn't very harmful, a bit more of it isn't very harmful either. What horribly damaging affects accompanied the perfectly legal contagion of heroin addiction of civil war vets and housewives between the Civil War the the first World War? --you know--the period of time when the US rose to until-then-unknown levels of wealth and influence in the world by frogmarching the rest of the earth into the industrial revolution?
Yes, I'm afraid it is against the law. Here's a link about illegal alcohol still being made.
http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/story1a0908.html
So. Once again, I ask you a very simple question.
PLEASE, PLEASE, name just ONE activity that has DECREASED after it was made legal.
PLEASE
Just ONE.
Would murder decrease if made legal?
Would rape?
Would robbery?
What criminal activity would?
Can't think of any, can you?
Then why, oh why in the world would DRUG ABUSE decrease if drugs were legalized?
The argument that it would is so absurd to begin with, that it's hard to have a rational conversation with somebody who thinks that legalization is a great idea.
If you still can't answer my ONE simple question or can't admit that drug usage would NOT decrease through legalization, then we really have nothing else to discuss.