http://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/prohibition-spawns-drug-violence.html

I don't expect politicians to be sticklers for logic, but this is ridiculous. Americans also have a hefty demand for Mexican beer, but there are no "Mexican beer cartels." When Obama visits France, he doesn't consult with politicians about "wine violence." What's happening on the Mexican border is prohibition-caused violence.

Stossel is an asshole...but one who is correct in this assessment of the drug violence. The issue I have with him is that previously he was a huge proponent of the war on drugs as were most so called "conservatives" and it was called liberal to support legalization.

I think it is really dumb for anyone in the current administration to try and implement gun control based on an out of control Mexico. I think if you want to see some serious blowback that would sure be one way to see it...guaranteed. Current firearms laws are fine and, besides the FFL, most laws are set on a state by state basis.

Stossel had the same take on prohibition-II in one of his books (http://www.amazon.com/Give-Me-Break-Hucksters-Media/dp/0060529148), published back in 2004. He may have supported criminalization at some point, but it's been awhile.

And he's got the best mustache, it makes me miss the 80s.

Same ideals people have blown around on this forum more than once, leaglize it.....the drug market would tumble. Money spent on fighting a war on drugs would then be spent on fighting drug addiction.

If legalization is a Liberal tenant, then I guess I'd better sign on with the Democrats. I've never understood why a lot of people in this country has such a problem with others that decide to get their crunk on.

If legalization is a Liberal tenant, then I guess I'd better sign on with the Democrats. I've never understood why a lot of people in this country has such a problem with others that decide to get their crunk on.

It is a very liberal tenant and has been so for years. The funny thing is I had once posted on this board how legalization was the answer and got skewered as a liberal leftist for thinking that way. I think I even pointed out that during prohibition gang related drive by shootings were a common occurrence.

At what point do you draw the line though?

Legalizing pot, fine. The majority of the cartels seem to be engaged in pot smuggling at the moment. But what about cocaine or heroin? Do we legalize those too? Because if we legalize pot and their profit margin with pot evaporates, I just don't see the cartels closing up shop. Rather they will adapt and smuggle in the harder stuff if it is still illegal to recapture their profits.

Pot is relatively innocuous. Heroin and crack not so much. Legalization of those would likely increase the incidence of addiction and the related health and social consequences. The "cure" may have more severe consequences than the current border violence.

I just don't see an easy answer on this one.

Heroin is just an opiate, many of which have been legal, controlled substances all along. A century ago, doctors prescribed laudanum. Today, they prescribe morphine and oxycontin.

Cocaine is replaced with locally created meth (which is worse) and all sorts of prescription stimulants.

I'm not sure there's any reason to believe that we've actually accomplished anything other than creating a black market and shifting addictions to different substances. You can't legislate morality.

You can't legislate morality.

True, but you can at least try to educate for it and de-glamourize narcotics use.

You will also notice opiates are *prescribed* and their use monitored by doctors. Such is not the case with recreational use which is what we are really talking about here. The rates of death by overdose if heroin is legalized may very well swamp the number killed in the border violence. Ditto for cocaine (though it is harder to overdose with from what I understand).

True, but you can at least try to educate for it and de-glamourize narcotics use.

You will also notice opiates are *prescribed* and their use monitored by doctors. Such is not the case with recreational use which is what we are really talking about here. The rates of death by overdose if heroin is legalized may very well swamp the number killed in the border violence. Ditto for cocaine (though it is harder to overdose with from what I understand).

Oxycotin is the number one drug that can be directly related to Pharmecy robberies ( which seems to be the rage anymore ).

True, but you can at least try to educate for it and de-glamourize narcotics use.

You will also notice opiates are *prescribed* and their use monitored by doctors. Such is not the case with recreational use which is what we are really talking about here. The rates of death by overdose if heroin is legalized may very well swamp the number killed in the border violence. Ditto for cocaine (though it is harder to overdose with from what I understand).

Laudanum was about as controlled as cough syrup. Somehow we made it through that just fine.

What reason is there to believe that more people will use heroin if it's legalized and regulated? If anything, prohibiting people from doing something usually makes them want to do it more.

Oxycotin is the number one drug that can be directly related to Pharmecy robberies ( which seems to be the rage anymore ).

I wonder if that's users who can't afford to buy it, users who can't get it due to no prescription, or people stealing it to resell to group #2?

Laudanum was about as controlled as cough syrup. Somehow we made it through that just fine.

What reason is there to believe that more people will use heroin if it's legalized and regulated? If anything, prohibiting people from doing something usually makes them want to do it more.

While there is the "forbidden fruit" aspect, it is extremely addictive and the simple curiosity factor will probably ensure an initial surge of use if legalized. Some people still think that "if the government makes it legal, it must be OK". Others will be attracted by the danger factor or perceived "coolness" and easier access will mean they have no real impediment to sampling it. I mean, look at how many people still get hooked on cigarettes even though they have no redeeming value and have been known to cause serious health problems for decades now. It doesn't have to be illegal to be "cool" in the minds of teenagers.

I've seen studies that claimed that drinking hit record levels during prohibition, but factually that is incorrect. There was a spike compared to 1919-1921, but it was still well below earlier levels of consumption. For other reasons, the per capita consumption of booze in the US was higher in 1910-1915 (1.6 gallons) than it was during prohibition (peak of 1.3 gallons). It was much much higher in the early 1800's (up to 9.5 gallons in 1830). This tells me that other factors than legality may be more important in determining if a drug is popular or not.

I wonder if that's users who can't afford to buy it, users who can't get it due to no prescription, or people stealing it to resell to group #2?

It's highly addictive and quite the high so it's being stolen as a way to keep themselves high on their drug of choice.

While there is the "forbidden fruit" aspect, it is extremely addictive and the simple curiosity factor will probably ensure an initial surge of use if legalized. Some people still think that "if the government makes it legal, it must be OK". Others will be attracted by the danger factor or perceived "coolness" and easier access will mean they have no real impediment to sampling it. I mean, look at how many people still get hooked on cigarettes even though they have no redeeming value and have been known to cause serious health problems for decades now. It doesn't have to be illegal to be "cool" in the minds of teenagers.

I've seen studies that claimed that drinking hit record levels during prohibition, but factually that is incorrect. There was a spike compared to 1919-1921, but it was still well below earlier levels of consumption. For other reasons, the per capita consumption of booze in the US was higher in 1910-1915 (1.6 gallons) than it was during prohibition (peak of 1.3 gallons). It was much much higher in the early 1800's (up to 9.5 gallons in 1830). This tells me that other factors than legality may be more important in determining if a drug is popular or not.

So why aren't cigarettes illegal? Why not alcohol? Red meat?

It's highly addictive and quite the high so it's being stolen as a way to keep themselves high on their drug of choice.

If you label someone a criminal for their addictions, you lower their barrier to committing other crimes. If it were available without a prescription, to anyone over 18 or 21, I wonder if those robberies would still occur as often.

I don't know. I'm not saying I have all the answers. I do think the current conventional wisdom is pretty far off in left field though.

Social tradition mostly. We have a very long period of time where tobacco was deemed a harmless vice, so usage was very prevalent. Alcohol has been recognized as dangerous for far longer, but it also is embedded extremely deep in our culture. Red meat is not a drug at all, so it is a straw man argument for purposes of our discussion.

Heroin and cocaine are relative newcomers to our culture compared to booze (they are comparable to tobacco though). They have easily recognizable severe harmful effects after a relatively short time of use (including death by overdose), so usage was naturally less widespread than tobacco.

San that logic just doesn't work. It's HIGHLY addictive and a controlled substance. Dumping all controlls will not make it a brighter and better world. There's a reason you don't want something so addictive just floating about where anyone can get at it. Imagine the damage done to children just popping those.

I understand a bit of the logic behind legalizing drugs. However it's not a clean cut move by any means.

Oxy is down right scary stuff, still for the life of me don't understand the need for Oxy in the pain world. They already had drugs that work, with all the trouble surrounding it, the drug makers should be made to stop making it. Find other means to treat pain, that the medical world has used for the last 80 years. Having tried many things experimentally through my youth, and then recently given a Oxy tab '1' from a person during my last knee surgery who said, oh this will take the pain away....first time I took a pain pill that made me puke from the effects, yet feel very very good lol. Left me craving more, I'll stick to tylenol.

/nods IB I'm currently taking, daily, Ultram/tramadol for my back/leg issues. I don't react well at all to the narcotics and since I have to take "something" long term I'd rather have some pain than all pain gone and suffer the nasty side effects.

Oxycotin is just flat out dangerous ;(

San that logic just doesn't work. It's HIGHLY addictive and a controlled substance. Dumping all controlls will not make it a brighter and better world. There's a reason you don't want something so addictive just floating about where anyone can get at it. Imagine the damage done to children just popping those.

I said over 18 or 21.

I'd still like to know how we possibly managed to survive all those years when laudanum and cocaine were available at the corner store. Opium usage goes back even farther than that.

I don't advocate anyone using hard drugs, but it's pretty obvious that their mere presence is not the societal enemy that some would scare you into believing.

Social tradition mostly. We have a very long period of time where tobacco was deemed a harmless vice, so usage was very prevalent. Alcohol has been recognized as dangerous for far longer, but it also is embedded extremely deep in our culture. Red meat is not a drug at all, so it is a straw man argument for purposes of our discussion.

Red meat kills and disables far more Americans than all illegal drugs combined. If we're banning heroin because it kills and cripples people, red meat isn't a strawman at all. It just isn't part of our well ingrained conventional wisdom.

I eat the shit out of some red meat. Throw me in prison for hurting no one other than myself, right next to the drug addicts!

Oxycodone is nominally cheaper than morphine, although frankly not by a whole lot. Due to various narcotics laws it's easier to prescribe thebaine derivatives than straight morphine in the general case. I have noticed that they really are overprescribing everything lately, ten years ago I had a head injury and they gave me Aleve, now I can get a hydrocodone script pretty much at will.

Having been on both oxycodone and morphine, as well as the usual hydrocodone and other more run of the mill analgesics, morphine definitely takes the trophy as the one I'd be most likely to abuse -- it takes elephantine doses of any of those to produce euphoria for me, but I did appreciate being able to talk to plebes without being bored with the conversation after two sentences.

As for "the damage done to children," that's just panic. While addictive, the long-term costs are mainly associated with addressing the addiction, not say, cancer and brain damage.

Oh, I didn't mean physical damage as much as I meant the damage to their lives. Sorry I didn't express that well.

Red meat kills and disables far more Americans than all illegal drugs combined. If we're banning heroin because it kills and cripples people, red meat isn't a strawman at all. It just isn't part of our well ingrained conventional wisdom.

I eat the shit out of some red meat. Throw me in prison for hurting no one other than myself, right next to the drug addicts!

It is still a straw man argument. Cars kill and injure more people than red meat does, but it simply isn't germane to the issue. Red meat is a food, and one we are clearly evolved to consume from our earliest days as a matter of survival. Narcotics like heroine, cocaine, etc. are not. They are a different class of hazard entirely.

Also, drug addicts have a tendency to hurt not just themselves but others as well. Irresponsible behavior resulting in injury (eg. drunk driving), crime, etc. frequently affect more than just the person imbibing.

I'm not sure what the answer is either. It would not overly bother me for pot to be legalized and treated like cigarettes (though I would never take up using pot myself), but the notion of readily available heroin or crack cocaine scares me shitless. I've seen some truly screwed up people hooked on that stuff, and the thought of their numbers jumping really gives me pause.

Personally, if people are stupid enough to do something because it seems "cool", I'm not too sure I want them to continue contributing to the gene pool.

If someone gets high, and hurts someone else, treat it like drunk driving is: stiff penalties.

Let those who would be addicts overdose and die, and let those of us smart enough to travel down that path continue with our existence.

Laudanum was about as controlled as cough syrup. Somehow we made it through that just fine.

What reason is there to believe that more people will use heroin if it's legalized and regulated? If anything, prohibiting people from doing something usually makes them want to do it more.

More people will not use heroin because it is legal, in fact it would probably cause a massive drop in addict crime associated with needing the cash to get a fix.

The average Heroin addict has a habit of about 70 dollars a day which means they spend alot of time looking for that $70.00 to buy their stuff.

There was an experiment done in England a few years back where they took some addicts and gave them prescriptions for heroin. They brought the price down to a $10.00 a day habit and the addicts ended up getting jobs and actually producing in life.

What I find shocking is that very few people seem to have learned the lessons of alcohol prohibition which turned that into an organized crime empire (Al Capone...the whole Mafia thing) I mean geez...Mexico is just the new canada...the great lakes became a border security problem as did the northeast coast line with smuggling liquor in from Canada and not to mention the whole "Bathtub Gin" poison being spread around.

Legalize drugs, control the sale and distribution...make it a 21 and above with ID proof and it becomes a profitable tax revenue generating business. Make narcotics available like medicinal marijuana is now but in state controlled stores like we have in PA or Pharmacies.

It is still a straw man argument. Cars kill and injure more people than red meat does, but it simply isn't germane to the issue. Red meat is a food, and one we are clearly evolved to consume from our earliest days as a matter of survival. Narcotics like heroine, cocaine, etc. are not. They are a different class of hazard entirely.

Also, drug addicts have a tendency to hurt not just themselves but others as well. Irresponsible behavior resulting in injury (eg. drunk driving), crime, etc. frequently affect more than just the person imbibing.

Wait, are we talking about alcohol or drugs?

As far as red meat being food, why does that matter? If you're talking about the American government playing nanny and banning things because they're dangerous, why the double standard when it comes to the single largest killer of Americans?

I'm not sure what the answer is either. It would not overly bother me for pot to be legalized and treated like cigarettes (though I would never take up using pot myself), but the notion of readily available heroin or crack cocaine scares me shitless. I've seen some truly screwed up people hooked on that stuff, and the thought of their numbers jumping really gives me pause.

Is there any proof that it would be more readily available than it already is? It's not as if illegal drugs are difficult at all to obtain if you want them.

I'd bet that the only reason you don't see more heroin usage today is because the middle and upper class addicts can get their narcotics in pill form instead of intravenously.

Wait, are we talking about alcohol or drugs?


Doesn't matter since booze *is* a drug. But to make it clear, you can drive while impaired from a narcotic as well as from booze and people have been killed in impairment situations where booze was not involved. I've personally seen someone do stupid shit on a motorcycle while higher than a kite from pills/weed that ended up seriously hurting bystanders (impaired judgment).

As far as red meat goes, how many other people have been killed by someone under the influence of a hamburger? :)

Since this discussion is about mind altering drugs, foods like red meat are simply not germane. This issue isn't about the nanny state out to protect you from yourself, this is about the state protecting others from your actions.

As far as proof of drugs becoming more readily available, no there is no proof, merely prediction based on the fact you could openly purchase said drugs at a store without making special "arrangements" or precautions.

The thread has moved on a ways since I started pecking at this this morning, but Oxycontin's *intended* use was as a slow release drug for severe chronic pain cases such as certain cancers, severe nerve pain (such as neck injury) where surgery is contraindicated, aggressive rheumatoid arthritis with bone destruction (much worse than mine, Grade III- IV), etc. In these patients it's useful for restoring both quality of life and sanity, and the threat of addiction, while not low, is usually a minor consideration if someone is facing a terminal diagnosis or their quality of life without that level of pain management is extremely poor. Yes, it can be crushed and snorted for an explosive high, but so can Ritalin (and it is, I recently read an article on Ritalin abuse in schools/colleges from a reputable source - my point being, people will abuse almost anything). My sister has been taking it under supervision for a few years now for a severe neck injury and interestingly enough, it's the only psychotropic drug she *hasn't* abused - it's oxycodone and lithium (for bipolar) that have allowed her to hold down a job on an ongoing basis for the first time in many years.

Regarding Malse's comment on the 'excessive' availability of pain medication, a lot of that has to do with the area you live in, your racial/socioeconomic 'profile', and the nature of your illness/injury. It's true that through the 1980s and '90s pain medications were underprescribed as a matter of philosophy and policy because of concerns about addiction; that only began to change when numerous large scale studies came out suggesting that improper pain management was significantly interfering with healing in hospital/institutional settings, and resulting in diminished function and quality of life in those with chronic or terminal conditions. Around 2000 or so pain management protocols began to change at the major teaching hospitals and as taught in the medical schools; but this is highly regional in terms of implementation. On an outpatient basis, white, upper and middle class individuals who have a verifiable chronic pain condition can usually get proper (and occasionally improper ;) ) pain management medication from their private specialists, but it was nearly impossible in Laredo because of the implicit distrust of patients on the border and the constant threat of DEA harassment of the doctors, which was patently hilarious because you could just walk across the border, see a doctor over there, and get what you wanted with no questions asked (and in the case of Tramadol, OTC at that).

Texas doctors/hospitals in general still seem to be hanging on to the 'mustn't ever give opoids because of the threat of addiction' compared to, say, the east and west coasts; and Philip (Faervas), as a somewhat scuffy looking Hispanic male, had to endure several months of jumping through hoops just so *he* could get on Tramadol, when he has a spasticity condition from his spinal cord injury so severe that his almost completely paralyzed leg will vibrate the whole bed and it causes his blood pressure to spike dangerously high (for which they were happy to give him two different BP medications, neither of which stopped the spiking, but pain management magically did ;) ).

This has rambled on longer than intended, and a bit off topic, as usual, but the point I wanted to make is that *in individuals with a intractable chronic pain condition*, even those who may be prone to addiction, actual abuse of the pain management drug for the purposes of getting high is rare - what they feel is relief and the ability to function, and the urge to take the drug is small to nonexistent when the pain is less or not present. It is funny though how very similar drugs in the opoid class can have very different addiction profiles in different individuals though.

Years ago, I had a rheumatoid arthritis specialist who was pretty free with the opoids; his patients were mostly elderly women with pretty severe disease and it's counterproductive to give heavy immunosuppressive drugs to older people with late stage disease, so surgery and pain management is pretty much it (and it kept them from whining ;) ). I had a prescription for hydrocodone for 30 pills with 3 refills - and never in that year before I decided the guy was useless even used up the initial 30, much less refilled it. Why? I'd take one (or half of one) when I had severe pain, but if I wasn't so bad off that there was *no* position I could rest in, taking them actually *interfered* with my ability to rest, making me feel worse afterwards. I've either been prescribed, or been offered, numerous opoid variants since then over the years and they've always been something I wouldn't *want* to use unless I was miserable - until last year, when a friend offered me a vicodin/ibprofen combo when my elbow seized up. Oddly enough, the ibuprofen potentiated the hydrocodone in a peculiar way for me and while I didn't get high on it when I had severe pain, when I took another half some weeks later I got really laid out by it - and promptly realized I had no business messing with those ever again :).

On the original topic, as I've stated before, the available evidence suggests that it's *much* less expensive and disruptive to society to treat drug addicts than to deal with the violent crime, and all its rippling consequences, that our current policy of trying to cut off supply, which is patently impossible, creates. Isn't the spiralling catastrophe that has resulted as a result of the last 25 years of policy on that issue enough evidence to suggest that maybe we should try something else?

Regards,
Nydia

To Gulor's point about 'addicts hurting others', we have existing drunk driving and other statutes that can be (and are) applied to people on whatever medication when they are dumb enough to get behind the wheel while high. I don't see how this makes a valid argument against decriminalization; driving while impaired (handling firearms, committing other crimes) is still illegal and already covered by existing laws.

Regards,
Nydia

True, but you can at least try to educate for it and de-glamourize narcotics use.

Whether a drug is 'glamorous' or not often has a significant impact on its use; the big exception there is methamphetamine, which is so dangerous and toxic that people would be *better* off if we opened the floodgates to cheap cocaine and re-legalized ephedrine for those who prefer their pure stimulants a bit less polluted (with an appropriate black box warning for those with heart problems :) ).

Back to the opoids issue, it was legal to buy what they called '222s' over the counter in Canada for decades (in pastille or capsule form in bottles of 100, I might add), which were a combination of aspirin or paracetamol (tylenol), codeine, and caffeine; and yet this didn't result in hordes of people becoming raving society-destroying addicts. Why? I suspect because they were thought of, and treated as, a minor analgesic like any other, and not glamorized/stigmatized as a psychotropic drug. My mom kept a box of the pastilles in the medicine cabinet for her migraines and I would occasionally take one when I had the same or a sport injury and shockingly, none of us came out the worse for wear...

The point being it is bad enough we have people dying to drunk drivers even though driving drunk is already against the law. Do we really want to increase that number of deaths by adding more people driving under the influence of other narcotics as well? More readily available narcotics will likely mean more stoned drivers on the roads (though I agree there will be a huge overlap- most narcotics users also drink).

If you look at other countries, I'm not aware of any that have legalized narcotics across the board. Even Holland, generally considered the most permissive, restricts usage to "soft drugs" like cannabis and then only in certain designated areas. As near as I can tell, we would be unique in the world if we were to decriminalize the hard stuff. Why is that do you think? Is *everybody* wrong about how dangerous those drugs are?

The point being it is bad enough we have people dying to drunk drivers even though driving drunk is already against the law. Do we really want to increase that number of deaths by adding more people driving under the influence of other narcotics as well? More readily available narcotics will likely mean more stoned drivers on the roads (though I agree there will be a huge overlap- most narcotics users also drink).

There is no way to authoritatively declare that usage would change in either direction. We can both speculate, but that's all it is.

I have an extremely difficult time accepting the notion that usage would increase significantly. Nothing I've seen, experienced, or studied suggests that it would.

Is *everybody* wrong about how dangerous those drugs are?

I'm not interested in doing what everyone else is doing. At different points in history, *everybody* was wrong about a wide variety of things. We'd still be bowing to King George if that herd mentality was all we accepted.

Massive numbers of people are already driving under the influence of opoids, probably more than you'd be comfortable thinking about, and there is no evidence that would change.

There is no way to authoritatively declare that usage would change in either direction. We can both speculate, but that's all it is.

I have an extremely difficult time accepting the notion that usage would increase significantly. Nothing I've seen, experienced, or studied suggests that it would.



I'm not interested in doing what everyone else is doing. At different points in history, *everybody* was wrong about a wide variety of things. We'd still be bowing to King George if that herd mentality was all we accepted.

We'll have to agree to disagree I think.

Massive numbers of people are already driving under the influence of opoids, probably more than you'd be comfortable thinking about, and there is no evidence that would change.

If you think those opoids are in *any* way comparable in strength or severity to the heroin an addict uses, just watch how addicts physically react seconds after shooting up. I suggest you take a stroll down to the nearest "shooting gallery" and watch them for a while. Extreme drowsiness and lethargy, clouded thinking and lack of concern for their surroundings does not induce confidence that they are in any way capable of driving safely. While painkillers are a problem too, their immediate effect on the user just isn't in the same ballpark as what happens with heroin.

Look, it isn't rocket science people. If you suddenly start selling heroin over the counter (and especially if it results in a drop in price) you are going to have *more* people buying and using heroin, not less, and as a consequence more people will become addicted to it with everything that entails. Your average middle class joe probably doesn't have a clue how or where to score heroin right now. It would take him a while to learn the ropes to get it, something he isn't likely to do given the risk, shame and effort involved. If it is staring him in the face at the corner store every day and the social taboo isn't there anymore, those impediments just aren't there. Add in the inevitable advertising campaigns from the heroin sellers and pretty soon you will have a significant increase in consumption, not a drop. In some ways cocaine is even worse, already having a glamor attached to it that will give it a head start with the wannabe crowd.

The point being it is bad enough we have people dying to drunk drivers even though driving drunk is already against the law. Do we really want to increase that number of deaths by adding more people driving under the influence of other narcotics as well? More readily available narcotics will likely mean more stoned drivers on the roads (though I agree there will be a huge overlap- most narcotics users also drink).

If you look at other countries, I'm not aware of any that have legalized narcotics across the board. Even Holland, generally considered the most permissive, restricts usage to "soft drugs" like cannabis and then only in certain designated areas. As near as I can tell, we would be unique in the world if we were to decriminalize the hard stuff. Why is that do you think? Is *everybody* wrong about how dangerous those drugs are?

There are people driving under the influence of Heroin, Coke and everything else right now. I actually think that making it legal and "forcing" people to a central and very public place like a state store or pharmacy will help to cut down on use as it adds an embarrassment factor to the purchaser.

It will also add the "Please Show Your ID" to the mix thereby actually cutting down on those in their teen years from becoming regular purchasers.

As far as other countries go with legalization, most keep drugs illegal based on threats of aid cut by the US government, oddly enough just about two years ago Mexico briefly played with legalization until we stepped in and now look at what we have.

I've been on a morphine drip, I know exactly what the physical reaction is. People on even low dosage opoids are more dangerous simply because they do not realize they are impaired. You're not driving on an intravenous morphine dose. You're probably not doing much at all.

The key element here is you are confusing control and criminalization. I don't think anyone is advocating medicinal anarchy, just a more realistic and cost-effective set of controls over a legal activity.

The problem lies in where the line is drawn. Right now its arbitrarily set with alcohol and smoking on one side, pot and heroin on another. You have to set a line somewhere (preferably before legalized rape and murder) - and I can't ever imagine every mind altering substance being legal without a prescription. Luckily Phillip Dick is around to imagine it for us I suppose, but I don't imagine any of us will live to see that day.

The problem lies in where the line is drawn. Right now its arbitrarily set with alcohol and smoking on one side, pot and heroin on another. You have to set a line somewhere (preferably before legalized rape and murder) - and I can't ever imagine every mind altering substance being legal without a prescription. Luckily Phillip Dick is around to imagine it for us I suppose, but I don't imagine any of us will live to see that day.

Yeah ok.


If I wasn't feeling so lazy I'd link one of the various sites that show the mind boggling amount of money and manpower that is used fighting illegal drugs which could be used in a couple hundred different better ways. I'm a-ok with drug use going up by a small amount for a short time(which despite any declarations about how TOTALLY OBVIOUS it, no one here has presented any reason to believe it'd be more then that), if it means drug related crime is vastly lower and more money and time is spent on useful stuff like drug prevention/treatment and schools and infrastructure and health care and all that hippy shit.

In the 1800s Britain was flooding China with Opium. Even though China had banned the substance, they had no way to enforce the laws or prevent its widespread distribution. England eventually went to war with China over its ability to sell Opium in China.

The result was the Opium was, for all intents and purposes, legal in China. About 27% of the male population in China became addicted. Society stopped functioning and China started to slip backward. They became much easier to control for foreign powers.

On the otherhand, England had no ban on opium at the time. They were aided however, by the low amounts allowed in and the high price of it so far away from the source. In addition, during the Victorian Age, society itself worked against the use of these substances. Furthermore, that Age had a tendency to cover up and pretend problems didnt exist. (by the way... Great book (http://www.amazon.com/Pride-Prejudice-Zombies-Classic-Ultraviolent/dp/1594743347))

Even so, Opium use became an epidemic in England. Imagine the effect if more pure, cheaper opium was made available in the mass quantities that China had to endure.

Maybe legalization works some places. But it wouldnt work in the United States. Our culture and society would impale itself on open access to Heroin and cocaine. Although I do think decriminilization of small amounts of Marijuana is a good idea.

What is in the interests of the greater good and what makes our society stronger. There is strong historical evidence, and practical common sense that tells us that legalization of powerful addictive drugs would most definitily NOT be in the best interests of the United States.

It would work here...you're comparing the 1800's to the 21st century...I think there was a lack of medical knowledge back then...like...hey President Lincoln got shot in the head and he's still alive...ok...stick your finger in the hole and see if you can pull the bullet out.

Medical knowledge?

You think insurance companies would cover or pay for addiction related expenses in that climate? They would go out of business. Everyone with group health care would have to sign a waver to not use or risk losing coverage. People just wouldn't tolerate the significant hike in rates due to having to carry an increased load of junkies.

So people engaging in use would most likely have much LESS medical assistance as accessing it would in all likelyhood result in being dropped from coverage.

Yes medical knowledge = understanding addiction. In the 1800s most people thought addiction was the work of the devil, much like the modern day republican thinks.

There has been plenty of "live" studies and places that have decriminalized all kinds of drugs and there is no increase in users.

Do you really believe that people don't use heroin, meth or other drugs due to the illegality of them?

I'd venture to say that the number of current addicts on both legal and illegal drugs will stay the same.

Medical knowledge?

You think insurance companies would cover or pay for addiction related expenses in that climate? They would go out of business. Everyone with group health care would have to sign a waver to not use or risk losing coverage. People just wouldn't tolerate the significant hike in rates due to having to carry an increased load of junkies.

So people engaging in use would most likely have much LESS medical assistance as accessing it would in all likelyhood result in being dropped from coverage.

Huh the wha?

Healthcare already covers drug addiction, at least partially, despite it being illegal, without going out of business, despite the post ER treatment you typically get now being known to be much more expensive than say, quitting smoking ...

Meanwhile the public is forced to pay 60,000/year/person who gets tossed in jail for this before any healthcare costs ...

No clue who you're reading today, but please pass whatever joint came with the book.

Smoking and drinking are different as they are embedded in the culture and the industry as evolved around and already incorporates their cost.

Legalization would have date of effect and companies would move to insulate themselves from cost increases.

As far as numerous successes... Id say the only success has been Portugal. The needle parks and legalization in other countries have been an overall failure and has led to an increase of addicts and people requiring government assistance.

And Portugal doesnt = the United States. They are a much more traditional (85% Roman Catholic) culture, much more socially conservatitive, with a Population of 10 Million people spread out over 100s of villages, towns and cities. It largest city, Lisbon, only has 500,000 people. Management is FAR easier, controls are much easier to have in place and the natural social checks that guard against addiction are more effective with such a small, homogenus population.

You know what.. You could definitly legalize all drugs in Salt Lake City, Utah, and it would have little to no effect. Legalize all drugs in places like LA, NYC, Miami, Philly, Detroit, Dallas, Atlanta, DC, or Boston and you would be dealing with a disaster of epic proportions.

Smoking and drinking are different as they are embedded in the culture and the industry as evolved around and already incorporates their cost.

Legalization would have date of effect and companies would move to insulate themselves from cost increases.

As far as numerous successes... Id say the only success has been Portugal. The needle parks and legalization in other countries have been an overall failure and has led to an increase of addicts and people requiring government assistance.

And Portugal doesnt = the United States. They are a much more traditional (85% Roman Catholic) culture, much more socially conservatitive, with a Population of 10 Million people spread out over 100s of villages, towns and cities. It largest city, Lisbon, only has 500,000 people. Management is FAR easier, controls are much easier to have in place and the natural social checks that guard against addiction are more effective with such a small, homogenus population.

You know what.. You could definitly legalize all drugs in Salt Lake City, Utah, and it would have little to no effect. Legalize all drugs in places like LA, NYC, Miami, Philly, Detroit, Dallas, Atlanta, DC, or Boston and you would be dealing with a disaster of epic proportions.


You're wrong on this, all around. What could the possibility be...Rush Limbaugh switches from Oxycontin to Heroin? Artie Lange switches from Heroin to something else?

I think you'd have to ask yourself as to why you don't do Heroin or lay around drunk all day.

Malse is right...rehab is already covered.

Back in '87 or so when I worked on the NTF in the New York area I can honestly say that I never saw anyone who didn't do heroin because it was illegal. People who do drugs do their drug of choice the legality doesnt seem to matter.

Eh, I know some of the logic ya'll are pandering is full of bullshit.

If pot was legal I'd smoke it, I don't now because it's illegal.

Figure that in to your bs equations that say the numbers would stay the same ;P

I'd echo that, I'd most likely have an ouce of blow around the house too if it was legal, only reason I dont is...I'd go to jail and all things would go very bad from that point on.

I'd echo that, I'd most likely have an ouce of blow around the house too if it was legal, only reason I dont is...I'd go to jail and all things would go very bad from that point on.


LOL...I think I had enough of that stuff back in the late '80s. But then again I don't do anything as far as Alcohol, Cigs, Weed or drugs...I'm pretty much an organic health nut now...no more fun :cool:

As far as other countries go with legalization, most keep drugs illegal based on threats of aid cut by the US government, oddly enough just about two years ago Mexico briefly played with legalization until we stepped in and now look at what we have.

That just isn't true. Europe does not need (or get) significant aid for us to threaten to cut, yet nowhere on the continent is heroin use legal.

Threats to aid are used for producing countries (and transit countries), but mean diddly squat to other consumer nations.

The key element here is you are confusing control and criminalization. I don't think anyone is advocating medicinal anarchy, just a more realistic and cost-effective set of controls over a legal activity.
While you may be correct in the confusion, I am assuming this whole discussion was about over the counter style decriminalization, because "controls" don't take away the illicit market. Just look at all the illegal viagra adds we get spammed with as an example of a so-called prescription drug that has a huge illicit market. To get rid of the smuggling/violence, we are really talking about legitimizing the hard stuff, not necessarily just controlling it.

Are you equating email spam to Mexican drug cartels?

Only in the fact that it illustrates that unofficial sources of controlled drugs will still be profitable, thereby making sure there is still a profitable market for the smuggling of the drug involved, whether it be heroin or viagra. In other words, making heroin/pot/cocaine/whatever "legal but controlled" won't put the drug cartels out of business because someone will always be willing to pay a premium to avoid the controls.

Note that the Viagra ads are advertising cheap Viagra, the opposite of paying at a premium.

Seems like a pretty bad example. In every aspect, email spam for Viagra shows how regulated substances destroy any profit motive for a cartel type organization.

Note that the Viagra ads are advertising cheap Viagra, the opposite of paying at a premium.

Seems like a pretty bad example. In every aspect, email spam for Viagra shows how regulated substances destroy any profit motive for a cartel type organization.

Possibly, but no one advertises "expensive xxx", it is always touted as inexpensive, even when it is not. Also someone is obviously making bucks on the "cheap Viagra", enough to pay for doing an end around the prescription controls. I would also suggest the relative drop in cost (if any actually exists) is due to volume as far more people prefer not to get a prescription, not a good sign if applied to heroin. We are also assuming the cost of "controlled" heroin would be below street value, which has yet to be proven to my satisfaction.

Any controlled substance will always be cheaper than an illegal counterpart. Heroin isn't rare, exotic, or expensive to produce. It's expensive due to simple risk vs. reward and artificially limited competition.

That just isn't true. Europe does not need (or get) significant aid for us to threaten to cut, yet nowhere on the continent is heroin use legal.

Threats to aid are used for producing countries (and transit countries), but mean diddly squat to other consumer nations.


That is true what I said. Go ask the Netherlands and see what they were not going to get.

We should let the Cigarette companies do it.

Its not like they would spend billions of dollars in ads, marketing and research to addict as many people as possible to their product.

Since you obviously have put a lot of thought into it, I'm curious what you would propose Sanchek if you could make the decision. Right now its just an offense / defense over a very broad topic and I wonder exactly what you'd advocate.

Treat it like cigarettes and alcohol. All of it. Tax it heavily, and restrict it to 18 or 21+.

Between the recouped money currently being wasted (at best) on Prohibition-II and the new tax revenues, there would far more than enough money to spend on education and/or treatment.

Heroin is nasty, but so are a lot of things. The fact is that you're not going to suddenly have legions of high school kids or suburban housewives that think it's cool to do intravenous drugs. That has always been the province of junkies, and is repulsive enough that it probably won't be changing any time soon.

Yeah, those cigarette companies and their damn private armies that keep shooting police officers.

Anyone ever lived in California or still does? Land of breakfast cereal (Fruits, flakes and nuts)?

Every need a rattle can for honest purposes? Like painting something? I wanted to repaint my BBQ grill and needed a can of Hi-Temp black paint.

Well, I went to Home Depot and they have that stuff locked up like it was ammo and shot guns at Walmart. A manager has to open it up and get eyes on you to be sure you are over the age of 50 and then an employee has to follow you to the register to make sure you arn't gving it to a child so they can huff it or tag some's wall.

So, anything can be a controlled substance. Even paint. Whats the difference if its legal or not.

So instead you want to fuse corporate efficiency and the ability to mold popular culture with one of the most addictive substances on earth. Add in massive distribution capabilities and maybe a McJunkies on every corner!

yeah.. what could possibly go wrong.

See, this is the problem. Be it Fair Tax or this garbage... You just trade one set of problems for an entirely new, worse, set. Great..

Drugs are bad. They destroy lives and families. They cripple society and they lead to nothing but ruin. Not because they are illegal, but because of the hold they have over our species. We are weak. We are flawed. Its all an individual can sometimes to keep their heads above water in the current of forces that are far more powerful than us. Government SHOULD be a breakwater, offering shelter from the onrush. You would have government open the floodgates and sweep more of us away in your rush to live out some frontiersman idealism that isn't grounded in one shred of reality, but instead tries to implement some discredited fantasy which is only based on how you really WISH the world was, not how it actually is.

I grew up outside of New Haven and I know way too many people who have destroyed themselves on this poison. And this proposal would only serve to multiply that problem. Destroy more people.

There is no one solution to problems. We have to muddle through. Its ugly sometimes, and inelegant. But it is the way it is. All we can do is what we truly believe is the right thing to do for as many people as we can. The right thing to do is to protect the weak but not to hinder the strong. To work toward justice and see if we can't improve the lives of people.

Legalization of drugs tosses aside entire chunks of people as if they don't matter. It is a surrender to what I KNOW from seeing it up close, is an evil thing. Not only to surrender to it, but to attempt to profit from human misery and the destruction of people and families.

Well.. luckily for all of us, ideas like this and communism that devalue human life for the sake of the greater good will always be tossed aside onto the trash bin of history.

"What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul."

So instead you want to fuse corporate efficiency and the ability to mold popular culture with one of the most addictive substances on earth. Add in massive distribution capabilities and maybe a McJunkies on every corner!

yeah.. what could possibly go wrong.

See, this is the problem. Be it Fair Tax or this garbage... You just trade one set of problems for an entirely new, worse, set. Great..

Drugs are bad. They destroy lives and families. They cripple society and they lead to nothing but ruin. Not because they are illegal, but because of the hold they have over our species. We are weak. We are flawed. Its all an individual can sometimes to keep their heads above water in the current of forces that are far more powerful than us. Government SHOULD be a breakwater, offering shelter from the onrush. You would have government open the floodgates and sweep more of us away in your rush to live out some frontiersman idealism that isn't grounded in one shred of reality, but instead tries to implement some discredited fantasy which is only based on how you really WISH the world was, not how it actually is.

I grew up outside of New Haven and I know way too many people who have destroyed themselves on this poison. And this proposal would only serve to multiply that problem. Destroy more people.

There is no one solution to problems. We have to muddle through. Its ugly sometimes, and inelegant. But it is the way it is. All we can do is what we truly believe is the right thing to do for as many people as we can. The right thing to do is to protect the weak but not to hinder the strong. To work toward justice and see if we can't improve the lives of people.

Legalization of drugs tosses aside entire chunks of people as if they don't matter. It is a surrender to what I KNOW from seeing it up close, is an evil thing. Not only to surrender to it, but to attempt to profit from human misery and the destruction of people and families.

Well.. luckily for all of us, ideas like this and communism that devalue human life for the sake of the greater good will always be tossed aside onto the trash bin of history.


Wow you said everything except "Just say No"

People lives are as destroyed as they let them be destroyed. It will not create a majority of people who suddenly pounce on the chance to boot heroin all day.

You grew up near New Haven and saw destruction of people due to drug addiction...why didn't it destroy you? Why did you go to college, from what I gather worked your way through it as a prison guard, and end up what seems like a pretty good educator.

I think most people will agree that drug addiction can destroy, as can alcohol, cigarettes, prescription drugs...the list can really go on and on.

I think you are saying this is about boundaries and with legalization we remove those boundaries? Your answer will drive my response.

idealism that isn't grounded in one shred of reality, but instead tries to implement some discredited fantasy which is only based on how you really WISH the world was, not how it actually is.

Not to ignore the rest of your point, but this does very well describe how I do feel. Except, it's how I feel about those who think we are currently making any significant progress in impeding people from partaking in their chosen vices.

This puritanical notion that we can effectively legislate morality is foolish. I understand that it's well ingrained into society as conventional wisdom, but that doesn't make it feasible or true.

Drugs are bad. Of course. We all get that. Millions upon millions of Americans are still using them though, including hard drugs like heroin and cocaine. That's just a fact of life, regardless of whether or not it's a happy bullet point on a DARE presentation.

Honestly, making quality cocaine available at cheap prices would be a huge win for areas plagued by meth users and producers. Hard drug or not, it would be replacing Drain-o for the brain, that is often cooked up in unventilated labs while kids sit by and watch.

You talk about society's productivity? How productive are all of the millions currently in prison on simple possession charges?

I would really like to see an accurate breakdown of deaths from booze and cigarettes compared to the controlled drugs. Take into consideration and it can be direct or indirect.

-Accidents
-Cancers
-Suicides
-Murders

There stands a good chance that the most destructive drugs are legal. Also, anyone who thinks that pot isn't a carcinogen is a fool. This arguement could, and should only go one way or the other. Legalize them all and sin tax them to death, or blanket legislate a complete Prohibition, because the grounds that substance A should be illegal over substance B are circumstantial at best. Alcohol abuse will probably come out on top as having ruined more lives than any other drug.

I know you are on your soap box, LL, and you have alot of fair and sound points, but you have to look at what the current "legal" drugs currently do as well too. The rationalization for them being legal in spite of all the harm they do is that the cost of the crime associated with Prohibition completely surpassed any costs upon society by allowing them to be legally consumed. It would be much more benificial for all these substances to be legal and taxed with the proceeds maybe (we know they all won't) going to social awareness and treatment programs. Drugs probably will never be removed from society, because only education will engrain the population with the fundementals that abuse of these substances is completely against the grain. Education between the social and economic classes is never equal, unfortunately. Legalization will at least get rid of the profit motive and curtail the violence. That has probably already been stated but perhaps a little reminder was required.

Heroin is nasty, but so are a lot of things. The fact is that you're not going to suddenly have legions of high school kids or suburban housewives that think it's cool to do intravenous drugs. That has always been the province of junkies, and is repulsive enough that it probably won't be changing any time soon.


Heroin in its current form is so powerful that it no longer needs to be shot up, its often simply snorted. But anyways....nasty drug. You would be surprised who's using this now days..its not the junkies in the arm pit of the cities. I have a couple friends who are the EMT's in cities around Milwaukee, yet very well to do families have kids who are O.D.ing on herion quite often these days.

It's just another opiate. Really, I'd be surprised if the problem there is heroin itself as much as the onslaught of legal opiates that get people started down that path.

I would really like to see an accurate breakdown of deaths from booze and cigarettes compared to the controlled drugs. Take into consideration and it can be direct or indirect.

There stands a good chance that the most destructive drugs are legal.

But on the flip side, perhaps the prevalence of these legal drugs (supermarkets, restaurants, vending machines, and even home delivery) is what makes them the most destructive. You can't argue that alcohol is worse for your body or others than heroin. So what makes it more destructive other than its prevalence? If heroin was just as commonplace and available ...

Why hasn't the whole of society wasted away huffing paint cans by now? They're readily available too, produce a high, are highly toxic, yet popular with a subset of substance abusers.

Because the high sucks? When the high is really really good, and then made legal...differen't ball park.

They don't care about ruining their lives, but do care enough about breaking the law and/or the pedigree of their high that they're going to be great members of society instead? Not buying that one.

When I dabbled in drugs, I was more worried about going to jail and ruining my life that way than I was worried about my health or any other issues associated with it. Losing a paying job because i'd be in jail, having drug offense on my record forever as a felony out weighed everything else. During those times I did well at my job, didn't hurt anyone, for all intense purposes...I was a producing member of society.

Heroin?

You mentioned coke before, which is on the far opposite end of the productive-member-of-society spectrum. Cocaine is like white collar coffee.

Come on look at those run way models on Heroin, they are fine!!! Helps suppress the appetite, ever see any obese people on Heroin? I am not sure what we are even debating at this point...legalize weed, all else stays illegal..im ok with that. Even doing that will take the load off our prison systems and help out a ton over all.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Were you doing heroin?

Come on look at those run way models on Heroin, they are fine!!! Helps suppress the appetite, ever see any obese people on Heroin? I am not sure what we are even debating at this point...legalize weed, all else stays illegal..im ok with that. Even doing that will take the load off our prison systems and help out a ton over all.


Artie Lange

No, in late 80's, early 90's wasn't really in rural Wisconsin. Wasn't of interest to me...neither was Meth which was cheaper and more available that coke.

Me either. How did we manage?

How do we manage not to crack open and inhale some Oxycontin just walking past the drug store?

edit: In response to your edit:

neither was Meth which was cheaper and more available that coke.

Doesn't that back the theory that price/availability isn't the driving factor? If legal heroin would doom us all, you should've been doing meth like it was going out of style, since it was the cheap/easy choice.

Huffing paint is against the law last I checked. Buying paint itself isn't. If it was legal, and there were bars set up for huffing, I bet it would be more commonplace.

I have a hard time believing that anyone's sitting in their garage, sweat beading up on their forehead, as they long for that can of Krylon that they're just too afraid of getting caught huffing in private.

That is true what I said. Go ask the Netherlands and see what they were not going to get.

I could find nothing to back up your claim. I have, however, found several references to US complaints about their current system of legalized soft drugs. All to no effect I might add. Apparently they feel free to tell the US to mind its own business...imagine that!

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3204.htm

Portugal's decriminalization effort:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

Cheers,

So, how did it work out for the Swiss at the Needle Park in Zurich?

Nice! Wouldnt it be awesome to have a public place like this in every city!

http://www.rwf.gr/uploads/photos/needle%20park.jpg

You already do, it's just a run-down house with a few murder victims in the basement.

You'd rather it be out in open, taking over parks and public places?

Public intoxication laws already cover drug related "intoxication" (including legally obtained narcotics).

Unrelated comment: I'm *extremely* pissed off at A Ro's increasingly erratic cookie recognition system at the moment as I just lost an hour's work I don't have time to repeat (I was logged in when I started, but when I hit post, it took me to the 'I see you're not registered, let's fix that', and when I hit back I got the same screen and my lengthy post was... gone :/). This has gotten worse over the last few weeks on both my work and home systems btw (which use different browsers and different settings).

In any case, I'll try to reconstruct what I'd said:

A lot of the arguments I've seen here against decriminalization have focused on the potential destruction of lives by various illicit substances as their rationale. As the Portuguese pilot program Lokase linked has pointed out, as have numerous studies conducted elsewhere, a properly implemented public-health approach to drug addiction both saves lives (in the direct sense) and saves lives (in the sense that otherwise law-abiding citizens who get picked up for simple possession don't get slapped with a felony conviction, end up doing hard time, and being economically and otherwise stigmatized for the rest of their lives (assuming they don't get raped, assaulted, pressured into joining a gang, and/or given a crash course on how to become a 'professional' criminal since they're screwed anyway if their former careers happened to be in, say, health care, law, teaching, require any sort of security clearance, etc).

One has only to look at what has been accomplished with tobacco use in this country (and nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs, bar none, with an estimated 87% of users who smoked even *one* cigarette in their lives becoming addicted, for those who might argue that this isn't a valid substance for comparison) over the past 40 years with a public health and deglamorization approach while keeping cigarettes legal (but now highly restricted in their public usage) to see how effective this can be. Sure, people still take up smoking, and become addicted; but the lure of that first puff behind the backstop at school has been greatly lessened by our portrayal of tobacco as a mildly disgusting habit; it's not 'cool' or mysterious anymore, just expensive, smelly, and pathetic. L2, with his 'needle park' actually enhances that point for me - think there are young nonaddicted people dying to hang out with that crowd? Probably not many.

Decriminalizing simple possession and home use of most currently illicit drugs while simultaneously deglamorizing their use and providing addiction counseling and medical management allows people to keep their jobs (assuming they're responsibly managing their habit), their dignity, and also, their tax dollars going *into* the system to be available to provide such services instead of being spent *on* them to warehouse them (frequently for the rest of their lives). Yes, there are always going to be a few hard core addicts who will be bound and determined to destroy their lives, but given that we *know* how things work out using the 'stick-only' approach and how much collateral damage *that* causes, and given the available data indicating that *most* addicts can manage to live productive lives provided they receive counseling and medical treatment for, including management of, their addictions, it's clear which of these approaches is less costly in real terms.

It's time we treated drug addiction as the public health problem that it is, and have public policy reflect that reality, instead of trying, senselessly and inefffectively, to pound it through the round hole of law enforcement, which is ill-equipped to deal with it on nearly every conceivable level.

Regards,
Nydia

P.S. Because she (Bea Arthur) passed away this week, because it's so excruciatingly awesome, and because it's reflective of a time where, not so long ago, we treated the issue of drug use as nominal adults, instead of knee-jerking, tantrum-throwing, ideologues, I leave you with Ms. Arthur and Rock Hudson in the deliciously surreal "Sniff Swig Puff" in all its '70s variety show glory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3VbSfQ3nAM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3VbSfQ3nAM)

P.P.S. The board did it again when I hit post after reconstructing; fortunately, I pasted it to Word this time first...

Unrelated comment: I'm *extremely* pissed off at A Ro's increasingly erratic cookie recognition system at the moment as I just lost an hour's work I don't have time to repeat (I was logged in when I started, but when I hit post, it took me to the 'I see you're not registered, let's fix that', and when I hit back I got the same screen and my lengthy post was... gone :/). This has gotten worse over the last few weeks on both my work and home systems btw (which use different browsers and different settings).

Nothing has changed here re: cookies. I'd suggest making sure you have no shortcuts/bookmarks to Ayonae.ro vs. Ayonae.com, and clearing any cookies related to either.

When I dabbled in drugs, I was more worried about going to jail and ruining my life that way than I was worried about my health or any other issues associated with it. Losing a paying job because i'd be in jail, having drug offense on my record forever as a felony out weighed everything else. During those times I did well at my job, didn't hurt anyone, for all intense purposes...I was a producing member of society.

So, you were able to function and be a productive member of society... what good to society would have come from locking you up for possession and the associated cost of incarceration?

No thats not what the post is about in fact it was arguing that going to jail isn't very productive...the reason people who turn adults (myself at least) quit doing those types of things because of the threat of going to jail, not because of the negative health/bodily effects of drugs. So you wouldnt be very productive being sent to jail, having a felony on your record..ect. Take away the legal issues, would then in turn make doing drugs you stayed away from because of being illegal..not the case anymore. I have no real passion either way on this topic, was just my point of view and having partaking in various not so healthy and illegal activites in my late teens and early twentys, could have some form of input. If making drugs legal free up 100's of millions of dollars, it should be seriously looked at..

So, I was at a Dave Matthews concert tonight (pure douchebaggery).

I was previously convinced that the War on Drugs was effective and that the "good guys" were winning, but I have to say I'm not sure now. I am pretty sure I witnessed the use of some marijuana cigarettes, and perhaps even worse.

HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED, IN AMERICA?!?!

So, I was at a Dave Matthews concert tonight (pure douchebaggery).

I was previously convinced that the War on Drugs was effective and that the "good guys" were winning, but I have to say I'm not sure now. I am pretty sure I witnessed the use of some marijuana cigarettes, and perhaps even worse.

HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED, IN AMERICA?!?!

Are you saying that douchebag's can't like Dave Matthews?

Dave Matthews...good time!! Should see them at Alpine Valley, out door theater.