[Zhang Fei]

[The US population a century ago was a fifth of what it is now. The impact of 5% drug use on society, a difference of 4M vs 35M people, is a big deal.]

---

5% is 5%. A bigger population is actually better able to deal with it. To have the more addictive personalities culled from the gene pool might actually improve the pool of survivors, and slow the trend towards idiocracy.

The way I look at it, we either unban drugs, or we execute drug dealers via an expedited trial and appeals process (3 years start to finish) and force drug users to detox. Anything in between is an expensive muddle and a resource drain.

[ARW]

No, the resources involved are not proportional/straight line. There comes a point when the difference in sheer numbers becomes infinitely more problematic to manage....more exponential.

[Bernard]

3 years? How about the Zangara rule? 33 days from crime to execution. How that is expedited justice. And that was even when he didn’t hit the guy he was shooting at.

[familyop]

"The way I look at it, we either unban drugs, or we execute drug dealers via an expedited trial and appeals process (3 years start to finish) and force drug users to detox. Anything in between is an expensive muddle and a resource drain."

Alright, I'm a little closer to that position. But we're very close to doing the former now. There's a lot of tolerance out there. Add a policy of open season on all distributors including addicts giving as little as one pill to someone else, and I'm in.