[The_Reader_David]

No spin needed. This news actually strenghtens one of the arguments for drug legalization. The flow of money into the hands of the violent is reinforce by the inflated prices caused by drug prohibition which stiffles competition from the peaceable and law-abiding, and (as the case of Al Capone shows) pushes the trade into the hands of more and more ruthless criminals the more strongly the prohibition is enforced.

(Liquor running on the Great Lakes was a ma-and-pa operation with very little violence associated until stiff enforcement handed it to Capone's gang.)

I myself am a moderate on the issue: if the social harms of the prohibition of a certain drug outweight the social harms of its increased use under a legalization regime, it should be legalized, if the balance is the other way, it should stay illegal. I just wish people would have the clarity of mind to distinguish which socal harms are cause by drug use and which are caused by giving the trade to criminals.

[Thane_Banquo]

Right, but the issue is that, whether or not it actually keeps people from becoming addicts, fighting against drugs also means fighting terrorism, for now.

I tend to say that primary violence (as a means of enforcing contracts) will decrease if drugs were legalized, but secondary violence (addicts breaking into homes, killing the occupants and stealing their goods) will increase. In that case, I would prefer the violence between people who freely choose to take or deal drugs over the violence against people who have no choice in the matter.