Slashdot Mirror
The Technology of Drug Prohibition
ches_grin writes "Although the GWOT gets all the headlines, technology is proving to be the key factor in the 'war on drugs'. This article and slideshow take a look at the current state-of-the-art for both federal agents and drug traffickers, from greenhouses to Predator drones: 'In the pitched battle surrounding illegal drugs, each side has its advantages. Law enforcement can take advantage of private sector expertise, expensive machines, and, of course, the law. Those who cultivate, manufacture, and smuggle illegal drugs can leverage vast sums of cash, generated by constant demand.'"
Legalise them, tax them!
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
That has done nothing save expand and enshrine the prison "industry".
Feh!
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
The Netherlands legalized marijuana usage decades ago and still is together with Germany the smartest country in Europe with 107 IQ points on average.
Growing rooms use huge amounts of electricity but the people running them usually bypass a building's meter.
Details, please!
Argh.
From TFA:
On the other hand, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control found in 2004 that about 20% high school seniors had used marijuana in the preceding month.
If 20% of your kids are actively sleeping with the enemy, you've already lost the war. No technology in the world will help you when the enemy has wide spread grass root support in your own country. It'd probably be a good idea to start to negotiate a cease fire.
I'd rather see money be spent on helping those trying to get out of enemy territory than punishing those who want to be there
And before writing an angry rant about how your cousin's roomate was kidnapped by dealers and forced into drug addiction and prostitution, please see my sig.
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
Does it fool anyone anymore? Can you honestly say you feel safer because of the War on Drugs, the War on Terrorism or the War on (insert political crap here)? We can't just throw money we don't have at these things forever and I would feel much better if I thought there would be any lasting effects to any of these "wars".
I would like to be treated like an adult for a change.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
When they said all power handed over to the government would be used most often for things other than terrorism. So now instead of hunting down terrorists, their protecting the country against drugs? All this money spent on high tech gadgets could have gone towards anti-terrorism, or *gasp* schools, and instead is being used to further a futile "war on drugs," just peachy. Nice to see big brother never fails to disappoint.
insert inflammatory anti-microsoft comment here
> You mean legalie meth, coke, heroin, crack? That will never happen. Nor should it... I doubt we
> want any more crackheads around.
Yeah, we all know how successful making drugs illegal has been in preventing demand! Look how hard it is to get drugs now! If we didn't have laws against them, why, you could get drugs in just a few minutes from any town on the planet! Thank god we don't live in *that* world!
some drugs?
Caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco are all "psychotropic" substances.
insert inflammatory anti-microsoft comment here
Summary execution of anyone in possession of drugs. Anyone tries to push? They're dead. Find a drug house? Bomb it. Even if there are hostages. Anti-aircraft fire? Napalm the block. Wall the borders and interdict all air traffic from nations that are sources of drugs. X-ray the bodies of all entrants. Etc.
The reason no one wants that is that the cure is worse than the disease.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
I doubt that there would be a significant, lasting rise in hard drug use. Is there anybody you know who would start smoking crack tomorrow if it became legal today? Would you?
As a matter of fact, it's highly likely that uptake and usage of harder drugs would drop in an environment of legality and education - see the statistics on heroin usage in Holland since they began selling pure heroin to addicts and educating the population about the dangers of heroin usage.
People generally come into contact with harder drugs through criminal acquaintences (sp?) and are often inclined to ignore warnings given by the government in the 'War on Drugs' since it takes very little time and experience to realise that it's a FUD campaign. Obviously if they lied about cannabis, they must have been lying about crack, right?
By legalising and lifting the taboo and FUD, drug related problems would diminish drastically. Controversially, that would leave the law enforcement agencies referenced here and TFA without jobs. But that can't have anything to do with why the legislation stays as it is can it? Surely not...
"Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."
-- Abraham Lincoln
Evidence of this today in the article summary:
"Those who cultivate, manufacture, and smuggle illegal drugs can leverage vast sums of cash, generated by constant demand."
The war on drugs is a guise to control people and to actively have racial crimes on the books.
What negatively affects me the most about the "war on drugs" is that it essentially makes having mental illness a crime. Many, if not most, people with mental illnesses get addicted to drugs and alcohol because of their mental illness, and trying to quit because of legal reasons with little to no medical attention is next to impossible. Next time you see the wino-street-drunk, odds are he just needs medical attention, but you and the government would prefer him to just be "off the street" and out of our sight. I know one of these guys who happened to get medical help, and he is pretty cool. He used to be a "garden variety street drunk" who would badger people, spit when he talked, and all of that. And today he is better not because of going to jail and being punished, but by being helped.
as if government doesn't have "vast sums of cash!"
Hmm, doesn't look much like a tough call to me...
I guess the high schoolers are better informed than I am. In 35 years of stoning I've not run across any harmful effects, except the threat of jail.
You synthesize meth in a pot greenhouse? Huh?
I think the article's writer was stoned to the gills!
The problem of cokeheads robbing, beating and killing people to get their cocaine goes away when we provide an easy way to get it. When the crime part goes away, it becomes easier to treat addicts and abusers. That makes most of the problem go away. Treating the problems with police and jail makes the problem worse.
--
make install -not war
Judging by the fact that alchohol prohibition did not reduce alchohol consumption, and the netherlands with its much more permissive legal behaviour regarding drugs does NOT see appreciably higher use of hard drugs than we do, no, I don't think making them illegal deters most people. It does, however, creative a gigantic, violent black market. Lucky you, you don't live in a place where you have to see the repercussions of that side of things, eh?
Sigh - yet another socalled 'war'. It always makes me shake my head in disbelief when I see it - I mean, how can one fight a war against drugs? It's not as if there is an army on the other side. Plus, a lot of these things are easily found in nature; just think of magic mushrooms - you can probably find them within walking distance from your home if you live outside a big city. Or take cannabis - you can the seeds as bird seeds or in health shops, at least in UK.
Or how about opium poppies: I see them growing in a lot of people's gardens. You can buy the seeds in garden centres or even in supermarkets (for baking bread etc). You can buy morning glory (contains LSA, similar to LSD) legally to grow in your garden. So how can one 'fight a war' against drugs? It's nonsense, simple and pure.
No, legalise it, educate people, tax it. That way we would get rid of two whole classes of crime that only exist because of reactionary legislation: drugs trafficking and drug use.
Drugs are glamourized in a sense and this would be the case whether they were legal or not. Music, movies, television all play a part in it. Same goes for alcohol. However, most people are not hooked on alcohol as quickly as they are with crack and meth. If they were, I'd think it would be reasonable to outlaw alcohol again.
Um... When was the last time you've seen a movie glamourizing crack, heroine, or meth?
Well, Monster Party kind of, but remember in the end he murdered his drug dealer and went to prison for it so I suppose that isn't glamourizing.
The point is, Pot is no more dangerous and addicting than most forms of alcohol.
Cocaine and X won't kill you outright unless you do stupid things and most people can take them and never get addicted.
Heroine, meth, and crack on the other hand will kill you and make you do things that you never thought you'd ever do in your life to get those drugs.
Personally, I'm all for legalizing Pot and maybe even cocaine if they find some method of controling the amount a person can get, but for FFS no one in their right mind should ever legalize household meth, crack, and heroine.
I live in an city with over 300 murders per year and I will tell you Dave Chapell's immitation of a crack feind is pretty spot on except its not funny when you meet one.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Will there be more druguse if it's legal? + Legal + Cheaper - Legal (some might like the thrill of doing something illegal) - Drugdealers currently have a lot to gain in recruiting new users - Easier to quit if it's legal
http://www.piratpartiet.se
Why not?
Most of the problems with alcohol went away when we legalized it.
Deaths from bad product went down 80% within the year.
Violence involving disputes between providers disappeared almost overnight.
Organized crime was dealt a major blow, which they were only able to recover from by switching to other illegal drugs. Protection rackets and fixing gambling just never brought in as much money.
Why do you think it will be any different with cocaine?
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
Legalizing these drugs (and others) serves two purposes:
1) It allows for the users without self-restraint to remove themselves from the picture, usually through death. It sounds hardhearted, but this really is the only way to convince some people. This has the side effect of showing a generation of would-be users just how awful addiction really is, and during their childhood to top it off!
2) It allows law enforcement to get back to its REAL job - enforcing laws to benefit society. There's nothing beneficial in forcing useless people to stop killing themselves. Allow them to die and enforce the laws that benefit the "greater good". Now, this doesn't mean that we should turn a blind eye when someone in their death throes decides to stir trouble for everyone else. If you murder, steal, etc. you should still be held accountable for that.
I don't think drugs are good. Not even marijuana. But I think that people who are stupid enough to harm themselves should be allowed to. It's a long-forgotten concept here in America... "Freedom" they used to call it. Free will and the ability to exercise it are a necessity. Consequences should arise from conflicting interests, not from arbitrary rules.
I think the overarching point is there already is a fantastically easy way to get Cocaine.
1. Drive up to any high school
2. Watch the kids outside for five minutes
3. Identify the drug dealer
4. ????
5. (Profit?!) Score some Cocaine.
There are other effective algorithms for obtaining Cocaine, most involve going to a seedy area and/or speaking with a junkie friend of a friend. Point of course is, if its illegal for kids to have cigarettes and alcohol, never mind 'da crack', why on earth do we believe that prohibition of these substances does anything except cycle the stupider/unluckier ones through the penal system?
Incidentally, the larger social costs of cocaine are threefold: increased crime due to substance's price (which is artifically high to deal with the risk fo being an illicit substance), overdose (usually due to impurity of product, again, because pharmacies aren't making the stuff), and the actual pharmacological effects of the drug in question, that is, how it alters mood, behavior, and health. I personally would rather get past problems 1 and 2 (which claim way more lives and money than the last one) and instead concentrate on the *actual* problem that drugs themselves produce.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
While this is true, and I mostly agree with you, I would be much more likely to try hard drugs if I knew they were pure. Legalizing them would provide that assurance. I think this argument holds best with things like pot or shrooms which are hard (or pointless) to cut with less desirables.
:x
Actually much of the problem WOULD go away. You know, unconstitutional police power, prison overcrowding, legal system overload, the high cost of keeping officers on the street, the violence by those bringing in illegal drugs, the violence caused by the users trying to get drugs (because since its illegal, they are almost more expensive).
You know, all the problems that prohibition created when it was in effect by giving rise to the mob.
Also, the justice system could focus on more important things, like terrorism (although it would be best if they were a bit more restricted, like before the patiot act).
How many recreation alcohol consumers kill children, fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters each year? Did the right to dominion over their own bodies also include a right over someone else's?
Certainly not. And this is, in my mind, the strongest argument to keep drugs such as crack illegal. But I wonder, how many people are killed each year by people due to their drug use, and how many people are killed each year by criminally inclined people who happen to take drugs. Also, how many people are killed by the illegal drug trade every year, meaning the process by which drugs are illegally created and distributed, a process that would no longer exist if those drugs were legal. Remember that the mafia grew up during Prohibition. Similarly, a lot of organized crime has grown up around the distribution of illegal drugs. Finally, its not clear how many users of, eg, crack we would have if drugs weren't illegal. During prohibition, hard liquor consumption went up, because hard liquor takes up less space than beer, and it is easier to smuggle. Similarly, in the 80s when police began to crack down on marijuana use, heroine and cocaine became much more popular, because it is much easier to smuggle. So it is possible that making these recreational drugs illegal actual encourages people to use more potent drugs. Of course, whether making some subclass of these drugs legal would discourage these now addicted people from using those same, harder drugs is a different question. Finally, any kind of drug legalization would presumably have to be accompanied by programs to help addicts. We would treat drug abuse as a disease, rather than a crime. Then I wonder how many people would still be committing crimes to get crack, when they could simply go to a shelter instead.
And before anyone starts in with "what about alcohol, its a drug!" or "what about cigarettes!" trying to turn my opinions around...ban them all. There are too many adverse effects to using any of them.
What about red meat? People can get away with vegetarian diets. Too much red meat will cause heart damage as surely as too much alcohol will damage your liver. And additionally, there is the argument that the animals raised for red meat consume food that is grown on land that could be used to grow food for starving people instead of for beef for overweight Americans. And why not ban tanning salons. And sodas- after all, all that sugar is bad for us. And all of the other things we do that are bad when not done in moderation, which I suppose includes just about everything. At the very least, banning red meat and sodas would seem to be the logical conclusion to your argument. I for one think there is something to be said for the government not messing with people, and just letting them live their lives like they want. Congress doesn't need to justify whether drinking alcohol is worth it for me- only I need to do that.
Heh, you have almost the exact same post two posts up.
Guess the thing about pot screwing up you memory is true. =P
Now that i think of it, maybe we just found what's responsible for all those dupes on Slashdot.
Only if it's free. If it still costs money to buy, the crime doesn't go away.
Finding other idiots on
Netherlands taxation is average for Europe: corporate income tax 29.60%, individual income tax 0-52%, VAT 19%. And the homeless are largely coming from Eastern Europe because begging in the 16th greatest economy in the world (with just 16.3 million people) pays a lot better than it does in Romania.
The experiment with drug politics has turned out to be quite successful. Or at least it showed that controlled sale of marijuana doesn't trigger the end of the world. Other parts of Europe (especially Belgium and Switzerland) have already taken steps into the same direction.
blow your mind already
I'm reminded of Bill Hicks' hilarious tirades against the War on the Drugs - [quote]"George Bush says 'we are losing the war on drugs'. Well you know what that implies? There's a war going on, and people on drugs are winning it! Well what does that tell you about drugs? Some smart, creative motherfuckers on that side."[/quote]
Oh really? Just wander by your local Emergency Room one weekend evening and look who is causing problems.
Deaths from bad product went down 80% within the year.
I have no idea where you pulled your "statistic" from, but I'll go along with a signficant increase in the purity of the drug when it was legalized.
Violence involving disputes between providers disappeared almost overnight.
But the societal problems of alcohol use remained. Druken driving, domestic abuse, chronic alcohol abuse, physical problems stemming from chronic alcohol use, etc.
The problem is that simply legalizing dangerous drugs in a complex society is fraught with lots of other problems. Yes, tiny little countries in Europe have experimented with legalization and government control of some very powerful, addicting drugs - I am not sure that this model would translate well in the US. I am also not sure of what mix of regulation and prohibition of drugs would be appropriate in the US, but I am sure the answers are neither simplistic nor easily attained.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Over time there has been a large amount of conspiracy "theory" regarding the prohbition of drugs resulting in the CIA direclty benefiting from the huge profit margins. There has been evidence and drug trafficing on several different contintents that has been directly linked to the CIA. I know that there have been several movies that have been made regarding this exact topic some based on fact others based on annocdotal evidence. There has also been a large amount of evidence supporting the CIA traffic drugs through LA at the expense of community housing projects etc. There is more information about the links here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America and http://www.narconews.com/ and http://www.fromthewilderness.com/ There are numerous links from American banks and the laundering of drug money. Especially through branches like banamex and Citi group. As long as drugs are illegal there will always be a government link to the incomes either directly via importing and dealing with the producers or simply by selling off goods that have been bought using 'dirty money' as long as those links remain there is no interest in the government in changing the drug policies even though many of the illegal drugs have no long term health benefits as is claimed in many government booklets/information pages. In fact many illegal drugs are being approved by the FDA for use in specialised treatment. One example of that is the use of MDMA to treat Post Traumatic stress disorder. As many people know different types of amphetamine have long been used for the treatment of common disorders like ADHD.
"Not to mention the permanent damage that a drug like opium or heroin can do to a person."
I'm glad you don't mention it, because I suspect you have no idea what that damage would be given a clean supply and good education.
"Another problem is this: if narcotics were legalized, who would end up being the distributors? Likely the cartels and networks of dealers that have been selling it illegally for years."
What makes you think so? Is all alcohol now produced by the folks who supplied the US with alcohol under prohibition? You might be interested to know that many of the so-called bad drugs are available on prescription, at vastly lower prices than the black market.
"Even if they did play fair and there way governmental oversight, the damage to the user would still be there."
I thought you weren't going to mention it? The net damage to users would be reduced massively due to clean supplies and education. Not to mention the reduction of damage incurred by frequenting an unfriendly, criminal environment in order to obtain drugs.
"Furthermore, testing narcotics for purity, etc is somewhat time-consuming and actually consumes a portion of the drug, which would raise the costs phenomenally"
I'm quite certain that the quality control methods used to ensure the standard of pharmaceuticals now is quite effective. Time-consuming? Oh no! Consumes a portion of the drug? Who cares? When it's produced for pennies per kilo, it really makes no difference.
"It's just generally a bad idea to open this all up so a few people can legally mess with their own heads."
It's obviously a better idea to spend billions on keeping those few who want to mess with their heads criminal. Note that the few people who you refer to are messing with their heads today despite the illegality.
That's why we've got so many people killing each other over $7 packs of cigarettes.
--
make install -not war
Pot is not chemically addicting at all. "Addiction" to pot is purely a psychological issue. The body does not form a dependance on pot. No shakes there. And unlike the other drugs, it can be picked, dried and smoked. No concentrating, no chems, no hazardous labs - you can even have Organic (tm) pot! Pot is a calmer. Pot is a giggle-generator. Pot makes people hungry. Pot is not the massive killer than alcohol is. The only people that die from pot are those tied up in gang-wars over the black-market and those in trafficing related conflicts with the law. So - pot is far superior in every way to alcohol. Drawbacks are - pot is high in tar. Bad for the lungs. Wonder if a bong helps with that? Of course, you don't have to smoke it. Think brownies! It's been demonstrated that pot actually increased intelligence too, contrary to previous claims that pot makes you forgetful. Now... where did I put my keys?
I couldn't care less about the processed drugs - coke, meth - those are dangerous from the get-go. Crack too. Dangerous to make, dangerous to consume. I'd much rather chew on coca leaves than snort that stuff up my nose. Actually - it would be kinda neat - a new kind of chew! Legalize the unprocessed drugs, fellas. You may find people abandoning alcohol for a tamer fix - less intoxicated deaths for certain (compare alcohol intoxication to pot intoxication and do the math).
But - politics again. And a very UNEDUCATED and GULLABLE public. There was a time all this was perfectly legal. You could drink Coke with coke!
Sigh...
And just to toss in another favorite Slashdottery, you have to wonder if Monsanto will be doing something if those coca plants are violating the patent on Round Up resistant plants?
Opening statement: I've never used any of the currently illegal drugs and don't intend to, yet I am a strong supporter marijuana legalization.
When I popped into this thread, I was expecting to see the usual arguments. I was expecting to spend a little time combatting ignorance. I wasn't expecting any actual progress.
However, what amazed me was that every highly rated comment (I browse at +3) was pro-legalization. Every single one. Sure, they were responding to some of the same tired old arguments, but it seemed that the pro-legalization camp was far more strongly represented by both posters and mods. That surprised me and made me hopeful. I'm a regular financial supporter of The Marijuana Policy Project. There are so many lost causes in the world, improvements I'd love to see that will never happen. But I believe this is one issue that we might actually see resolved in our lifetimes.
I live in the Las Vegas area, and there is a statutory initiative on the ballot this upcoming election. Please, please, please, if you live in the Las Vegas area get out and vote. There are initiatives in other states as well, but I don't know the details there.
I am convinced now there is more than enough support to pass legalization in many states. But people need to get active about it. They need to watch the issue an vote. If this is an issue you care about, please take the time. We're at a possible turning point in the next 10 to 20 years. We can make things better.
Cheers.
I think good drug education (DARE maybe?) that teaches people from an early age that drugs are powerful, must be respected, tend to cause a lot of complications, can lead to serious problems, must be used with moderation if used at all, can impair judgment, and contribute to health problems and traffic accidents---is much better at helping the social problem than simply trying to arrest it away.
You typically can't arrest a problem; you can usually only arrest its symptoms.
Nevada (I think) has legalized prostitution, with certain restrictions and such by the government. From what I've heard, legalized prostitution is less of a problem than illegal prostitution: less disease, less loitering, less time required by law enforcement, and less abuse of sex workers.
I think part of the problem is that the government knows America is not ready for drug availability. Look at alcohol---you have to be 21, driving drunk is a punishable offense, giving it to minors is a punishable offense, using it to manipulate someone is a punishable offense---but it's still a HUGE problem! There's plenty of date rape involving alcohol, lots of minors drinking, lots of people driving drunk---I mean, come on, use common sense if you're going to drink!
There are some people who are mature enough to handle drugs. However, many people don't know the first thing about how drugs affect their brain and body...
An interesting idea is a "psychoactive research license." Someone could take a special training course, take an exam, and be granted a license for a few years that would let them purchase small quantities of illegal substances and use them in the privacy of their own home. I mean, the Native American Church has an agreement that's sort of like this for the use of peyote in religious ceremonies (the Church has a permit to buy peyote from special DEA-licensed growing farms for certain restricted uses with registered Church members). Of course, if you trafficked the substances, used anything around a minor, became a public nuisance while intoxicated, or tried to operate a vehicle, you'd have your license revoked and be punished in some way.
One potential problem is that employers might start screening potential employees against the list of people with licenses; I'm not sure if it would be possible to keep the license list private and unavailable to the public, except perhaps if it's considered part of freedom of religion. (Maybe a better name for the license would be "Ceremonial substance permit.")
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
I've read a lot of replies that say we should legalize all drugs. While I haven't made up my mind on this one (seeing the History Channel show on Opium, Morphine and Heroin made me think about this recently) I do have a legitimate question.
If we legalize "hard drugs" why wouldn't we extend this to all drugs. That is to say all prescription drugs such as anti-depression, heart meds, erectile enhancers, and the like? Where do we draw the line. I personally think it is dangerous to have people self-medicating, so I want to konw if there is a legitimate answer to thisi. Maybe it falls back into the category of, "Yes, make them all legal and let the dummies kill themselves but smart folks will still see their doctor for a proper prescription that will tell them how to administer the drugs." That kind of makes sense.
Personally I get some allergy problems in the summer and have taken a prescription drug for years. At this point I know the dose and that one pill should be taken every 24 hours when I'm experiencing problems. I suppose it makes some sense that I should be able to refill as many times as I like right?
So how does this trickle down to kids I wonder? When I was 15, I imagine I would have tried some hard drugs had they been legal. Seeing a rock of crack next to the hard candy would make it seem like trying an atomic fireball or sour gummy. (There's no reason to think they wouldn't be presented like this if all are legal). The fact that they were illegal made me wonder why and that's when I did some research and talked to my parents. Now maybe the "legalize drugs" crowd would say it was my parents fault for not talking to me proactively. In their defense, my parents taught me right and wrong. Doing something illegal was wrong, therefore taking hard drugs was wrong. Maybe legalizing drugs is only for 18 and up?
This is a delicate subject indeed.
Cigarettes don't cause people to become unproductive. Crack and meth certainly do. A crackhead or a meth addict aren't going to have means to buy legal crack or meth. Legalization would reduce crime associated with distribution, but it ain't gonna happen so the whole argument is pointless.
Finding other idiots on
Oops! HTML formatting :-| Reposted with linefeeds here:
"However: if I'm going to pay for your hospitalization because you abused of drugs, then I get to regulate *something*, I don't know what but if I pay for you I must get something in return."
This is where the taxation comes in... The government can make *stacks* of money from legalization through taxation. Through taxes, the end of the multi-billion dollar drug war (the amount of money spent on fighting drugs annually is quite shocking), coupled with the reduction in harm through education, you'd likely end up paying significantly less in tax.
So you wouldn't have to pay for anything.
"*Oh yeah, I said "subsidize": how do you think the real junkies (you know, the ones without a job or a life) are going to pay for their fix? Right, they will NOT. Guess who'll end up paying."
Heroin addicts, taken out of the criminal environment, can contribute to a workplace and society in just the same manner as anybody else. There is plenty of data from Holland to illustrate this. Believe it or not, junkies are also human beings. Those without jobs and lives often want jobs and lives, but given their situation can obtain neither. Also, not all drugs are as intoxicating as alcohol, and not all addicts are as 'disabled' as alcoholics.
> if narcotics were legalized, who would end up being the distributors? Likely the cartels and networks of dealers that have been selling it illegally for years.
Highly unlikely. Drugs such as heroin and cocaine are typically transported across great distances at considerable risk, resulting in a high price. If legal, they could be produced from plants grown in greenhouses in the country where they are wanted and supplied directly to stores. The savings would be vast and the illegal market would not be able to compete. The drug production process could be regulated just as other consumables are, such as by the FDA. Remember this - when you support the 'war on drugs', you support the 'brutal cartels' and all the violence involved.
pandnotpian.org. The untruth will set you free!
It's a very dangerous way to get high. People die all the time. One dude even had to cut off his own arm. Same goes for riding motercycles. There's no reason for it, and it's dangerous. Eating fatty foods should be outlawed. Not excercising should be outlawed. Staying up too late should be outlawed. People who go to church live longer on average, so not going to church should be outlawed.
/sarcasm
Anything that makes other people happy, but that I don't personally care for should be outlawed. All shortcuts to happiness should be outlawed, happiness should only come from hard work and abstinence.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Gigantic megacorps that run farms like factories can ride out yearly dips and rises in the commodity price of staple crops, but some peasant trying to grow wheat cant say to his kids "wheat is worthless this year, but we can eat next year"; so the peasant farmers of colombia have to find a crop that has constant demand no matter what the US government is subsidising, embargoing or shipping out as aid, and that crop is coca and cannabis.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
I was going to moderate, but this is more interesting: Why not drop the federal insanity towards currently illegal drugs and leave it as a state matter (as it ought to be)? Vast differences in the attitudes and treatment of drugs would spring forth, and the people would have the opportunity to decide which policies work best. I can easily envision a place like New Hampshire legalizing nearly everything while Mississippi retains most of the draconian laws currently on the federal books.
But why not give it a shot, when the trillions spent already have done nothing to stem the demand?
"But the societal problems of alcohol use remained."
Yes, and they'll remain unless you eradicate every possible way for a human to mess with his brain in a psychologically addictive way. Since that's highly unlikely to ever happen, why not try a more reasonable approach?
The WoD will never be won. Never, ever, ever. If the US Govt can't even keep drugs out of prisons how are going to keep them out of anywhere else? It's all about the money. The money drives the passion to find new ways to maximize profits. The illegal drug industry is incredibly creative. Here's a couple of examples:
- Back in the '80s New Bedford, MA was an entry point for heroin. Larger fishing boats would stuff the drugs in a trash fish (any type of fish with little or no resale valve) out at sea, flash freeze and bury them with their catch. The trash fish and drugs would be quietly put aside while unloading or prepossessing. We're talking a few fish out of hundreds of pounds of catch. Virtually impossible to catch.
- In the Pacific Northwest bails of marijuana are towed behind boats from Canada, sealed and partly weighed down. If they think they're going to get caught they note the position on GPS, cut the line and the bails sink. The weights dragging the bails down are held together with zinc connections that are meant to break in a day or two. The bails re-float and are retrieved.
- Large fishing boats with three fuel tanks. Well, one real and two for the drugs. To conceal the true purpose of these outer tanks they'd seal the sounding tubes and fill partly with fuel. A LEO would check the tank, see it had fuel and assume it was a real fuel tank.
- Submarine found in Colombian Andes. Unreal.
It's a war that can not be won. IMO the solution is to legalize (and tax) marijuana like alcohol and allow MDs to prescribe Schedule I/II/III drugs "for maintenance" of a habit. The latter will greatly help slow the spread of blood born diseases and control dosing (a critical part in helping those addicted in finally stopping their habit).
Prohibition is a total fucking failure. The only proponents are those that make their living off of it: the Police, the rehab industry and those that sell them the tools. Go read Jacob Sullum's landmark book "Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use" for an eye openner.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
I assume you mean the Netherlands. You imply that the society of the Netherlands is not complex? Which 'very powerful, addicting drugs' did the Netherlands legalize? Cannabis and psychedelics are the only ones I know of that are given a pass for use, despite remaining technically illegal. neither of these are really addicting. And so what if they are powerful? Power, in and of itself, is not a reason for prohibition!
You are guilty of the same mind-set used by those who dismiss evolution because they cannot possibly comprehend how a billion billions of small changes could turn a aquatic animal into a land-based animal.
Blar.
"Yes, tiny little countries in Europe have experimented with legalization and government control of some very powerful, addicting drugs - I am not sure that this model would translate well in the US." You must be referring to The Netherlands. They have the highest population density of any country in Europe. When I lived there in 2000 the Dutch population was around 15 million. Not exactly a tiny little country, at least in terms of population. FYI Germany (I believe) is the largest, population-wise, at ~90 million inhabitants according to my Dutch friends. I witnessed first hand the benefits of their legal system, especially concerning police and violence. In the town of Doetinchem where I was living for 4 months, I learned that they only have 4 policeman cruising - D-chem is in the neighborhood of 100,000 residents! There is minimal violence, especially from guns (practically no one owns firearms). And even though cannabis and some of the more dangerous drugs (like heroin) are legalized, I learned that only about 10% (can someone verify?) of the Dutch population uses cannabis. Hardly a hot bed of druggies, even though people are free to use. I would be very suprised if Americans' TRUE usage stats are lower, especially for cannabis use. I was only there a short time, but in those 4 months I became convinced that a similar system would be wonderful for the US, especially in terms of reducing the cost of maintaining huge police forces and the far more vast cost of keeping drug offenders locked up. Of course, that's assuming we also reduce the number of American firearms considerably if we are going to try and match the Dutch method for keeping the peace. Oh yeah, and the herb was WAY better (and cheaper to boot), too! :-)
I think part of the problem is that the government knows America is not ready for drug availability. Look at alcohol---you have to be 21, driving drunk is a punishable offense, giving it to minors is a punishable offense, using it to manipulate someone is a punishable offense---but it's still a HUGE problem! There's plenty of date rape involving alcohol, lots of minors drinking, lots of people driving drunk---I mean, come on, use common sense if you're going to drink!
Maybe it wouldn't be such a problem if it was legal at an earlier age and people learned how to use it responsibly. Think there is any great mystery to booze in a country where you can legally buy it at 18 and where your parents have been giving it to you at dinnertime since you were 5 years old? Think those countries have a problem with binge drinking?
Only in the United States can I sign away my life to a cell phone company/credit card company/military, vote and be tried as an adult without being able to legally buy booze. And date rape/DUI are completely separate issues and bringing them up seems like FUD.
An interesting idea is a "psychoactive research license." Someone could take a special training course, take an exam, and be granted a license for a few years that would let them purchase small quantities of illegal substances and use them in the privacy of their own home. I mean, the Native American Church has an agreement that's sort of like this for the use of peyote in religious ceremonies (the Church has a permit to buy peyote from special DEA-licensed growing farms for certain restricted uses with registered Church members). Of course, if you trafficked the substances, used anything around a minor, became a public nuisance while intoxicated, or tried to operate a vehicle, you'd have your license revoked and be punished in some way.
Funny you should mention the Native American use of peyote. Native Americans are the only ones that need "permission" from the Federal Government to practice their religion. What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is so hard to understand? What you purpose would only create a massive bureaucracy with further control over our lives.
Here's an idea: Legalize all drugs. Prohibit employers from requiring drug tests with an exception for jobs that actually require you to be sober (i.e: truck drivers). Make people take responsibility for their own actions. You may not agree with that extreme of a viewpoint. But you'd have a hard time convincing me that THC should still be illegal.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The US War on Drugs is a sham and the politicians know it. But the constant barrage of absolutist demonization has left no feasible opening to seriously suggest the alternative: legalization.
The UK isn't so bad. Atleast they have had the courage to allow medical marijuana research, which has resulted in the legal Sativex. Cannabis is classified as Class C, resulting in warnings & fine for possession. And very recently, a parliamentary committee lambasted the whole classification system. Even many senior politicians (like David Cameron) and police chiefs have called for considering legalization. The US does have an equivalent movement in LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) with about 5,000 officers, but getting the word out relies on media accomodation, and unlike the UK, the US is not a very tolerant venue.
--posted on behalf of daksya
You want to fight drug abuse, eh?
Ban Ritalin.
It's such a load of fucking bullshit that parents can forcefeed their kids Ritalin for years if they don't like the grades they've been getting, but if a college student wants to take a small, one-time dose of speed so he can study for a tust he gets thrown in jail (and if you want to argue that Ritalin isn't speed, simply substitute "Adderall" instead. The former is a pseudo-amphetamine, the latter IS amphetamine and both have practically identical effects to methamphetamine.) I was addicted to speed (aka Ritalin) for four years before I finally refused to take it any more. I was 14 years old, and I somehow managed to overcome "peer pressure"--which directly from my parents and doctors, strongly urging me not to quit.
I went through severe withdraw and lost all self-control for about two weeks. My sense of humor was oddly changed and it took months for the fog to clear from my mind. To this day I'm still not sure if it's affected me permanently, and to this day I despise the feeling evoked by most stimulants (caffeine included.)
ADD (without physical hyperactivity) is a fucking scam. Medical bodies recommend AGAINST any form of physiological diagnosis (e.g. MRI), and the criteria for psychological diagnosis is hopelessly vague--it's a catch-all for ANY otherwise-intelligent kid who has problems in school. Doctors and shrinks will keep a kid on it even though it can have serious, permanent side effects, even if it's obvious that the kid is still having problems, even if the kid has gone into a severe depression as a result. Yes, depression is a known side effect of Ritalin and Adderall--the solution? Stick 'em on an antidepressant. Oh, but watch out 'cause in many cases this can increase depression and/or suicidal tendencies, and even if it doesn't there are plenty of other lovely common side effects such as libido supression.
My point is that we're turning millions of perfectly normal (if somewhat academically challenged) kids into crank addicts, sometimes against their will, while denying the right of informed adults to use this drug (or even a nonaddictive drug like marijuana) on an infrequent, occasional basis. This is severelyfucked up. You talk about drugs being shoved in your face--you have no fucking clue what you're talking about until you have your mom or dad tell you that you must take this pill or you'll be grounded.
And just so you know, I work in the mental health field so no, I am not just basing this on my own experience I've seen hundreds of kids (and dozens of mentally deficient adults) diagnosed with ADHD while in reality only maybe 2 or 3 of them were truly hyperactive/attention-deficient. The rest were just a bit uncooperative or apathetic.
At the ripe old age of 14, I educated myself on drug dependence, addiction, and withdraw, and I successfully quit the drug despite peer pressure in the worst sense of the term. I now occasionally employ alcohol and marijuana, but never in excess and never for more than 2 or 3 consecutive days (or when I otherwise feel like I'm building up a tolerance.) I feel that both drugs have had a positive impact on my life. Alcohol in the quantities I typically has numerous health benefits, and ingested marijuana has virtually no harmful side effects. I will not do either if I plan on driving anywhere.
So tell me, why should I be thrown in jail? Why should the shrinks and the overcontroling parents be allowed to forcefeed children addictive substances against their will on the basis of a nearly completely arbitrary diagnosis?
But one of the main reasons for outlawing drugs is that they're so dangerous. If they were legal, and more likely to be pure, they wouldn't be as dangerous, which means that the current laws are actually more likely to kill the average drug user than legalization would be. So even looking at this issue purely from a public-safety viewpoint and ignoring individual rights, there's a reason for legalization.
Revive the Constitution.
If the United States were to stop the senseless, wasteful and ineffective war on drugs, then redirect, say, 50% of that money towards drug education, I dare say drug use would decline dramatically. To that, redirect another 25% of the money to research into more effective educational methods, and within ten years the drug problem would be mostly a thing of the past. Don't scoff! Do you have any idea what we're spending? Are you aware that the majority of prison inmates are doing time for drug violations? That cost of keeping all these people in prisons is by itself a staggering sum. If you then add the cost of worldwide enforcement and interdiction efforts, you're talking about some very serious money.
These answers may not be simplistic, but the only reason they can't be easily attained can be attributed to the conundrum our politicians find themselves in. Most know that the WOD is futile, but to openly suggest an end to it is political suicide, and a few have tested that theory. Drug abuse is one of many political subjects in the US that is legislated by way of emotion, not rationale thought. For this I don't blame politicians, because not all of them fall into that trap, but those they represent usually do, and demand that their politicians do likewise.
I think we need to back up and ask ourselves what what we hope to accomplish with the WOD in the first place. To save people from the misery of drug addiction? Then how is it that we throw violators into prisons? Is living in a prison better than being addicted to a drug? If given the choice between the two, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't select prison. You?
"Wait!", you say. "None of that matters because we have to protect our children. We don't want them to be exposed to drugs, or to become people who use drugs!" That's strong motivation, and I'll be the first to agree with the sentiments. But look again. Are we accomplishing anything of the sort? Definitely not. Every child in the US is exposed to drugs in a variety of venues. Neighborhoods, schools, recreation centers. We keep trying to use force to make it stop, but we've never suceeded. We succeed only in turning them into criminals for seeking substances that human beings have craved for as long as recorded history has existed.
You reply, "The WOD may not be a perfect solution, but at least it keeps the associated crime in check. Without such a program our streets would be overrun by addicts, who would steal on a grand scale otherwise." That's another fallacy to which intelligent reasoning has not been applied. Most of the crime reportedly caused by drug abuse is in fact caused by the WOD itself! Look in your newspaper if you need proof. Few drug-related crimes involve addicts attacking people to get money for drugs. Most involve distributors fighting each other over turf, or one group stealing drugs from another. In short, most of the drug related violence is about money, not the drugs themselves, or the use thereof. The WOD perpetuates these crimes by keeping supply short and prices high. End it and drug related crime would all but go away.
Could it be that this last is the real reason the WOD continues? Could it be that the real power in the US is backing those who are raking in enormous sums of money from the drug trade? Ask yourself who benefits by keeping current policies in place. Not our children. Certainly not the majority of drug users. But if not them, who? Someone tell me, please.
No one claims legalization will fix all problems, but it's still a better world to fix some of the problems than none of the problems. Legalization might even make some particular problems worse. However, one needs to compare the total effects of both policies to make a logical choice. In particular, many of the undesirable effects of illegal drugs are really a side effect of them being illegal.
Luckily people have already done lots of research. In some ways, it's a cost benefit analysis. Of course, one of the biggest problems is that people don't know and understand the issues well enough to do a logical cost benefit analysis.
After doing research, I've come to the conclusion that legalization is a better solution in terms of liberty, economics, and harm reduction. Of course, legalization doesn't necessarily mean selling drugs out of candy machines. The primary goal is to eliminate the black market and there are many possible legalization strategies...
Chris Mesterharm
"I think part of the problem is that the government knows America is not ready for drug availability. Look at alcohol---you have to be 21, driving drunk is a punishable offense, giving it to minors is a punishable offense, using it to manipulate someone is a punishable offense---but it's still a HUGE problem! There's plenty of date rape involving alcohol, lots of minors drinking, lots of people driving drunk---I mean, come on, use common sense if you're going to drink!
"
1: The government is not a person. It doesn't KNOW anything. You are mixing metaphors.
2: Alcohol isn't a huge problem. It is a part of life, get over it. Contrast to the danger it brings, alcohol brings great pleasure and happiness to many many people. think of the parties, think of fun times with friends and loved ones.. enhanced through the use of alcohol.
The biggest problem with alcohol is alcoholism and then basic stupidity and irresponsibility. But stupidity and irresponsibility will ALWAYS cause problems.
Alcohol may be associated with something like 40% of traffic fatalities, but stupidity and recklessness is associated with 90%.
A person didn't start off smart and then get drunk and stupid and drive. A person started off stupid.. went to a venue in a car knowing in advance they would drink and knowing in advance that they would drive.
I dont hear many people saying we should make it illegal not to get an education!
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
The comparison to Alchol and tobacco are a good comparison: Alcholic substances such as beer are easy to make, and commonly not home-made. This is also true for Tobacco.
The Beer making process requires: (1) A Stove, (2) a Big Pot to sterilize water, (3) a Big Jug (such as a 5 gallon water bottle from the office cooler), (4) Wheat (and rice in the case of most american beer), (5) Yeast, and (6) Bottles - Most people still buy beer at the goverment taxed store. It's a case of speace effeciency and instanst gratification: To make Beer you have to Boil the water & Grain, Pour them in your office water cooler jug, let it cool, dump in the yeast, and wait a month. Then when the primary fermentation is done: You have to bottle and wait a few more months for the carbot content to go up. (OK, I left out the oxygen trap. If you don't use swing top bottles, you need a capper and caps - add $15)(Side note: Making harder alchol is also simple, take your primary fermentation of *whatever*, and simmer it using a condensing coil to capture & condense the alchol vapors into a bottle.)
In short, Alchol (and Good Beer especially) is extremely easy to make. However, you have to wait months for it, or get a carbon dioxide tank to force carbonization (and still must wait at least a month). You also need to have the space to dedicate to storing beer "in progress", and schedule your consumption to meet your demand. This is why the government taxed beer is so popular.
Making Tobacco (I imagine) is quite a similar process: You need (1) Land, and (2) a place to dry your tobacco. The steps for this are: Grow Tobacco, Harvest; Hang to dry. Then if you want cigarettes, roll them. This is also a process that takes months. I have read statistics that a pack of cigarettes costs less than $1 to make and transport. Since they generally are not found for less than $3 ($5 in DC, $8 in NY) the rest is profit and tax.
Even though making cigarettes costs a fraction of the price of buying them pre-rolled, everyone buys them in packs. (sometimes singles @$.25 ea.) Why, it's the same breakdown of resources (space and time) that get in the way of instant gratification.
As far as Marijuana goes, there is no reason that it could not be taxed at a high rate and still have a largely taxed consumption base. It is perfectly analagous to cigarettes. In addition, marijuanna legalization would free up a lot of resources for other purposes. (Although some resources would have to go for things like improved public transportation.) I suspect that Marijuanna is the most used "illegal" substance around (say 50%). What could be done if those people in jail for having it freed space in the system for harder drug pushers, or violent offenders? Or if the police chasing people for having Marijuana could be redeployed to chase down "minor crimes" - say the person who made my wife late for work Tuesday by stealing her bicycle?
The arguement that Marijuana would not be taxed, because everyone would grow it is a red herring. You can look at either the alchol or tobacco industry for a counter example. Freeing the resources spent on chasing down, prosecuting, and improsing Marijuana offenders would help society at large & help everyone.
I dont hear many people saying we should make it illegal not to get an education
That's already illegal.
This subject has already been examined plenty of times in Science Fiction.
Because Science fiction is so often right about what actually happens in the real world.
I'd argue with you more, but my flying car needs to be taken to the robo-mechanic to have the gyrostabilizers rotated and top off the dilithium crystals.
While you're at the self-centered "let's tell people what to do, because I don't want to pay for their problems" (but supposedly still expect them to pay for _yours_), why stop there? Lemme see what else we should make illegal...
- fucking without a condom. Well, hey, if they're going to be assholes about paying for the medical care for smokers (that's just about all the damage that pot smoking does too), then I don't want to pay for their AIDS/syphilish/etc bill when they go fucking around.
- going in the woods for a picknick or camping. They could get bitten by a bear, or poisoned by a snake, or stung by a bee and discover that they're allergic, or break a leg while climbing on god knows what rock. Why should I pay for the subsequent medical care? Shouldn't they take full responsibility when they decided to go camping? Make that illegal, I say.
- ditto for jogging, come to think of it. If they're going to exercise, they can do that in a safe enclosed place. I'm not gonna pay for their medical care if they insist on running outside where they can be run over by a car.
- for that matter going anywhere out of the house without an umbrella and without a backpack full of warm clothes. What if you get caught in a rain? What if it snows? (Yes, it occasionally does even in August.) Why should it be me who pays for the medicine to treat your pneumonia then? If you're going to go out with just a t-shirt and jeans, you should take full responsibility for whatever happens because of it.
- getting old. Have you see how often those old people get sick and need medical care? And don't even get me started about my paying for their pensions. They should just make suicide mandatory at 65 years old or so.
- using any kind of cell phone, walkman, ipod, or any other personal entertainment device. They can sprain an ankle because of paying more attention to that ipod than to where they step! Or even, don't laugh, back problems as stepping wrong can cause shocks in the spine. Ban any electronics lighter than 40 pounds, I say. Let's see them use _those_ while jogging.
- driving any kind of car, especially anything looking like a sports car. Me, I live close enough to work to get there in less than 10 minutes with the bus, so I use the bus. So why should I pay for your medical care when you get in a car accident? Where's the justice in that? If you insist on driving a car, you should take full responsibility for whatever happens as a result. Some drunk redneck in a pickup truck smashed into the side of your car? Too bad, sucker. It wouldn't have happened if you were in a bus, so don't expect sympathy or medical care money from _me_.
- travelling abroad. God knows what exotic diseases they have in those forn places. And then you go do your vacation or business there, get it and expect the rest of us to pay for your medicine. Worse yet, bring that disease back home and cause even more people to need medical care. It should be illegal, that's what I say. If closed city-state economies were good in the middle ages, they're good enough today too.
- parents. Yes, you've read that right. God knows how many shrinks make a living just out of people whose mom didn't buy them a lollypop, or whose dad never had enough time for them. Or worse yet, think of all the children that get molested or beat up by their parents, and then end up needing a decade of therapy for it. If we made parents illegal, think of how much money society as a whole would save. Each city should have one big orphanage (or several, if it's a really big city) where all kids are raised, far from their parents.
Etc.
</sarcasm>
Or you could stop being a self-centered judgmental asshole, and stop pretending that only the things _you_ do should be subsidized by everyone else. Life in society is a give-and-take thing. Yes, you pay for some smoker's medical bills, but then he/she pays for something else you may need. That's how it works.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
It showed that as long as the rats have good living conditions and aren't cramped in tiny little cages, they have no will to use drugs. Even drugs that are highly addictive like morphine. Rats that were in those tiny cages that showed the behavior you mentioned weened themselves off once introduced to better living conditions.
Bullish Machine Tzar
While the use of drugs is indeed a personal freedom issue the simple obstacle for me is that I would not exactly like a world were the majority of citizens are doped out.
You really believe that the only thing stoppin everyone from being 'doped out' all the time is the fact that drug use is illegal? If so, I have a bridge to sell you..
Here's another interesting idea: in jobs that require concentration and alertness, how about we test for reaction time? I saw a little device, basically a small LCD display with a joystick attached. The screen shows a dot which randomly swerves left or right, and you use the joystick to keep it centered. Such a device tests for actual impairment, so it will also catch the people who (for instance) have sleep issues and shouldn't be driving a truck.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Well, first off...not all drugs are addictive. Second, I think most numbers show that in places where there has been decriminalization, while there might have been an initial spike in users and first time users....these leveled off, and not everyone used drugs.
Think about it now...alcohol, which in some can be addictive..is legal. But, not everyone drinks, and certainly, not everyone is irresponsible with alcohol consumption. Why should it be any different with something say, pot, which hasn't ever been shown to be physically addictive?
"Human beings are sadly not much better then rats. Some of us too will happily do drugs while we rot away. Yes this is freedom, but society as a whole for now has chosen too put restraints on personal freedom. It is the simple thing of suicide being a crime. A truly free society would have no such ban. Yet again, do you totally trust a society that does not mind if say population group X killed itself?"
Well, you know...people can get hooked on anything, there are people out there that gamble too much, I'm sure that there is someone out there that like to knit so much, they let the rest of their life waste away...people will do it with anything. But, why punish those who can handle things in an adult manner just because some people are weak? Ever hear of survival of the fittest? Heck, by saving people from themselves, we may be in fact working against nature, which would have allowed these people to take themselves out of the gene pool.
I think occasionally, the gene pool NEEDS a little chlorine. And as for suicide...what is more personal that your own life? If you are suffering, should you not be allowed to choose what to do with the "1" thing that you truly own in life...your own life? What right do I have to tell you that quantity of life is more important than quality of life?
Go spend some time in the onc ward of your local hospital for awhile...and see if you don't change your mind a little...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Growing weed is a lot more work, it needs light and you need to take care of the water levels all the time
Nonsense. Marijuana grows ALL OVER THE US. It grows in the wild very very easily. The tipoff is in the nickname: weed.
Weeds grow well in adverse conditions. And marijuana is NO exception. In fact, in certain parts of the US, it literally grows on the roads. In fact, I hunt in SW Kansas every year and one of the popular Dove spots is right in the middle of a giant marijuana patch. And there are many of them all along the countryside.
No, growing marijuana is not hard. What's hard is the US Government's job of exterminating all of these plants. That is MUCH harder than growing it and it puts the US Govt in the "exterminator/lawn care" business - which is futile. Case in point: In SW Kansas, they hire private pilots in Cessnas's to check the pipelines that run all over. The DEA has also requested the pilots report any "cultivated" MJ patches and they get money for reporting them.
If you think I am kidding, just drive down I-70 in West Kansas. Pick any road and go North or South about 3-5 miles. If you don't see MJ growing on the side of the road (or near fences), I will be very very surprised. It really is that common and is easily seen/identified.
(sidenote: I have not smoked the MJ that is out there but I suspect it is more of the hemp variety than the kind that gets you high)
Not only that, but nobody has ever died from smoking too much pot. Ever. 20,000 deaths per year or so are blamed on alcohol in the U.S..
While the use of drugs is indeed a personal freedom issue the simple obstacle for me is that I would not exactly like a world were the majority of citizens are doped out.
Sorry fella, you already live in such a society. Unless you live in an Islamic theocracy, that vast majority of the people around you have easy access to mood enhancing drugs and use said drugs regularly. It is called alcohol. You can call it ethyl alcohol if that name makes it sound more like a "real" drug.
Alcohol is as much of a drug as any other drug. In fact, on the scale of drugs, it is probably one of the worst. It is absolutely lethal if you over dose, it is damaging to your body in low doses, it induces aggression in many people, and it destroys sound judgment. The only thing that keeps alcohol related deaths down compared to some drugs is that alcohol is made in a nice clean factory instead of some sketchy drug dealer's basement. If alcohol was made the same way illegal drugs are made (as it was during prohibition) you would find all the same problems that current illegal drug face in terms of purity and safety.
What would happen if the government legalized all drugs? Crime would plummet, police would have significantly more time to pursue real crimes, the prisons would empty, criminal organization would suddenly find that they are completely incapable of funding criminal activities, a handful of South American nation would become significantly more stable, and the number of drug related deaths would plummet. Drugs would be made in sanitary controlled ways by pharmaceutical companies and they would merrily compete to make the best non-addictive drug possible with the fewest side effects.
As to how society would change, other then a dramatic drop in crime and massive budget surpluses from the resulting savings in law enforcement, nothing much would change. People would still take drugs to recreate, they just might throw in some other drugs into the mix besides alcohol and caffeine. You would still get fired if you went to work, and alcoholics / drug addicts would still find themselves fucked when it comes to holding down a job. In other words, very little would change except a dramatic reduction in crime and government spending.
"You maybe never had to deal with drug users but I have."
Are you some kind of counselor or therapist? This is the problem with basing policy on worst case scenarios. You've only seen messed up people with horrible, abusive childhoods and hopeless lives, and pin it all on whatever substance or activity they do to escape from their miserable reality. However, you never stop and ask that regular, decent person who you see on the street or interact with daily how much they drink or what recreational drugs they use.
OTOH, there are plenty of people who have 2-3 drinks a day and live well into their nineties (look at my grandparents, or most of Europe for God's sake). There are people who regularly toke marijuana or do some coke or herion to get going in the morning or to relax. You have the Native American church with almost 7 million members eating multiple peyote buttons in weekly ceremonies, and they don't freak out and ruin their lives -- in fact a lot of members credit the church with helping them to deal with alcholism and emotional issues. Same goes with the Santo Daime and the União do Vegetal churches of Brazil, where they use ayahuasca instead of peyote.
The decent, upstanding citizen who uses drugs and alcohol regularly keep very quiet about it.The only reason you don't hear about them is because they keep their illegal habit quiet, since if anyone found out, they would lose thier jobs, family, and reputation and be forced into rehab where the only way you can get out is to admit that you are are powerless against alcohol, mj, video games, etc. and your life is completely controlled by that.
I had a roommate who was convinced that LSD makes you crazy because her mom worked at a psych ward and all of the paranoid schizophrenics had done LSD. The problem with that reasoning is that a lot of baby boomers had done LSD in the sixties, and then they went on to lead regular, happy, productive lives. In fact a lot of people credit LSD with opening their minds and giving them the interest to pursue some religious affiliation or intellectual activity. However, the individuals who were abused and come from a family history of mental illness went on to go crazy, and and then because they did LSD a few times, that must have done it. You know what? All of those people in the psych ward were smokers too. So then does nicotine make you go crazy? In fact, some people argue that LSD, marijuana, and nicotine are used as self-medication by people with mental illness to reduce their symptoms.
Now, please read and understand what I am saying. I am not saying that drugs are completely harmless. But people become addicted to them because of other factors in their lives, not because these drugs are like steel chains of addiction. Yes, meth, crack and paint thinner are very dangerous and destructive, but perhaps people wouldn't be interested in that if the less dangerous alternatives like LSD and peyote were more readily available. Or if we actually funded decent mental health care in this country.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso