[upsdriver]

Win the war on drugs, implement the death penalty for drug users.

[budwiesest]

I think those who profit in the trade of 'legal' drugs (cigarettes, alcohol, pharmaceuticals, etc) would have an incentive to keep other drugs illegal to protect their market. Bear in mind, politicians can be bought.

I think those who confiscate property deemed 'ill-gained' from a drug bust and may use the proceeds to augment their budgets have an incentive to keep drugs illegal. And remember, politicians can be bought.

Finally, prisons are a major undertaking in both construction and the manpower needed to run them. Without drug violating prisoners, occupancy rates might not justify building so many and could lead to layoffs in personnel. And did I mention, politicians can be bought? Anyone who recognized the theme common in each case may move to the front of the class.

[CzarChasm]

<rant>
The level of ignorance and knee-jerk idiocy in these threads is pathetic.

I am ashamed of the current crop of FReepers; surely you can harvest better pro-prohibition arguments than these lame analogies and limp-wristed anecdotes? Where are your facts? Where are the blistering retorts showing the logic errors and historical precedents that support your pro-prohibition positions?

Could it be that there aren't any?

The prohibition of alcohol required a Constitutional Amendment - because back then, we still respected the Constitution. This, alone, for a Constitution-loving American, should be reason enough to end this madness.

But if it's not, note that alcohol consumption went up during Prohibition, especially the consumption of "hard liquour" (since "the hard stuff" was more cost-effective to smuggle). By the time this misguided experiment (see below) was repealed, the damage was already done - organized crime was here to stay, they simply changed products and kept right on going.

Why was Prohibition a misguided experiment? Because laws do not make people moral. Criminalizing what was once a legal and free personal choice simply created a very large class of new criminals - and made supplying their wants much more profitable. Unfortunately it also made it much more violent, drastically increased police and political corruption, etc. - because that's what prohibitions do; or at least, that's what every prohibition in history has done.

No wonder these threads end up in the Smoky Back Room - there's very little intelligent discourse in them.

So let me save the pro-prohibitionists some time by addressing the expected and obvious non-sequitor retorts in advance:

• malum prohibitum is not equivalent to malum in se, so don't even waste pixels trying to go there. Killing a hooker in an alley is not the same as smoking a joint in your home, don't be stupid.
• escalation of substances reduces the market, not expands it; yes, smuggling will continue, but cannabis is by far the vast majority of the market and arguably the least harmful psycho-active substance known to mankind
• the Dutch experiment was wildly successful; their drug-related crime rates plummeted, and people voluntarily seeking help increased dramatically. The vast majority of hard-core "pot smokers" gave it up on their own by age 30 while continuing to lead otherwise productive lives [would that hard-core alcoholics could do the same!]
• NO ONE ADVOCATES GIVING DRUGS TO MINORS, that's a really stupid strawman

</rant>

[death2tyrants]

I like Reagan's strategy for the war on drugs. Build more prisons.

[Peter ODonnell]

One suspects that the current White House is not exactly a drug-free zone; one wonders how many residents and employees are also crack users, forget about marijuana, I imagine that’s available on speed-dial.

[elkfersupper]

We'll deal with legalizing the drugs later.

Right now, I would like to see firearms, hamburgers, tobacco, alcohol, gasoline and whatever vehicle I would like to drive legalized.