Warf Rat

I don't know how far this subject has been explored here, but I wanted to start a conversation.
Personally I think the war on drugs is devestating our lives in many ways.
Now let me be perfectly clear about one thing I don't believe in legalization of all drugs, that would be stupid, but I think some distintions need to be made here. If you legalize then it becomes just another product to be taxes and I'm not comfortable having the government profit from the slow destruction of lives. However there is a difference between selling dope and violent crime.
That's the heart of the issue for me. I think we should use our resources to fight violent crime more than crimes of self destruction and greed.
Federal prisons should only house violent offenders. If this were the case, then we would not be letting them out early just to open a bed for a drug dealer. That does not address what we do with them, but there has to be a better way. Mandatory minimum sentences have forced us to release far to many sick people into our society, only to be processed again after they do more harm.
I know that I may be too optomistic, but I think change is right around the courner. It won't be long before every member of the government has known lot's of people (themselves included) who have done drugs, moved on and become increadably successful.
Last thought, I have 2 children and I really don't want them to use drugs, but if they do play a little when they are young, I don't want to have to visit them in prison rooming with a murderer or rapist.

__________________
A day late, and a dollar short.

nanofever

The government has no business regulating morality. Drugs have no inherent harm and thus have no business being regulated. I'm for the government de-regulating every drug imaginable. Drugs will lose their mysticism and become less popular. The money from the drug business will be nill and gangs will lose their funding. Prisons will be free of drug offenders and hopefully, violent offenders will not be released without causation.

This being said, I don't think the government should tax the sale of drugs. However, I'm willing to accept that harm if the advantage is all drugs are classified as tobacco/alcohol.

As to the claim that people will have their lives destroyed and such, the government does not exist to play nanny on social issues. If it did, alcohol would be abolished for destroying lives, and on that note, prohibition is a great model for my argument. Alcohol is made illegal and gangs fluorish. Alcohol is made legal and the funding for gangs dies and shortly after the gangs also die.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

Warf Rat

I totally agree, I don't need a nanny government, and your piont about alcohol and tobacco is correct (this as I sit with a beer and a smoke).
However, I think you need to seperate addictive drugs, from non-addictive drugs. Things like pot and LSD and many other drugs only effect the user. Addictions on the other hand need to be fed no matter how. So I think legallizing all drugs might not be the answer, but I'm not totally against the thought.

__________________
A day late, and a dollar short.

jb2000

One of our biggest problems in this country is the prison population. What do we do with them? How do we afford them? How do we deal with their absence in society?

Maybe we ought to look at what we have so many people in jail for. When a pot grower has to spend a mandatory sentence longer than a rapist or even murderer, I don't think it adds up.

The War on Drugs is a war on ourselves.

Legalize pot and you will win the biggest victory in the war on drugs yet. Pot is the biggest gateway to 'hard' drugs. Why? Because it is illegal and unregulated, so they can put all kinds of crap in it. Pot absorbs as majority of drug enforcement costs and efforts. Legalize it, and you can regulate it, stop it from being a gateway, and turn those resources over to battling those 'hard' drugs that more folks agree are actually in need of being stopped.

__________________
"Don't tell me we're so blind we cannot see that this is my land! I can't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
And this is your land, you can't close your eyes to this hypocracy.
Yes this is my land, I won't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
'Cause this is our land, we can't close our eyes to the things we don't wanna see."

- DTH

Zeld2.0

It is as many people say - the War on Drugs is our generation's Vietnam.

We can keep pumping money and throwing people at the problem, but the issue can't die.

This will keep on being a problem as well...

hammer4all

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0429-09.htm

It's time for change. Treat drug abuse as a medical problem, not a judicial one.

tecoyah

Almost as effective as the war in Iraq.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Warf Rat

I agree with you legalize pot and the majority of the costs go away, and there will be no growers in federal prison.
The gateway argument has never flied with me.
The real gateway drug is alcohol, I am sure we all had a drink before we smoked pot. Having done every substance imaginable. I can't believe (and never have) the stories of laced pot. Who would waist marketable drugs that can be sold for much moor money by spraying some pot leaves. There is no logical reason. You can't think of it as a loss-leader (get them hooked for free, make money later), because the idea of lacing pot means they don't know what their doing or how to get it.

__________________
A day late, and a dollar short.

Warf Rat

That made me laugh out loud.

__________________
A day late, and a dollar short.

iamnormal

Its a great money maker for the government.

Stompy

The war on drugs is utterly pointless and very hypocritical.

It's illegal for you to buy marijuana and coke, but it's legal to consume alcohol, cigarettes, and the vast array of pharmaceuticals being advertised to millions and millions of people each day.

For every "flaw" on a human, there's a drug to counter it: depression, sleep, small penis, etc.. you name it, they try to sell it to you. You know what I'm talkin about.. those drugs that rattle off the laundry list of side effects.

I know the primary concern is buying from street dealers which in turn go up the tree to fund druglords, but if people want to do drugs, they're gonna do it no matter what you try to say or do.

The government might as well legalize all drugs so they can be regulated. They would also put said druglords out of business.

Let's put it this way: if it's okay for you to come home and light up a cigarette and drink a beer, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever as to why I shouldn't be able to light up a joint and watch some TV.

__________________
I love lamp.

prb

The War on Drugs is like our new War on Terror:
1) A "war" has been declared on persons largely unknown and
not comprising a sovereign entity;
2) Civil rights and truth are the first casualties in these wars;
3) No end in sight (how can either war ever be declared "won"?);
4) Large American corporations profit.

The scary thing is, if we can't seal our borders to those carrying
drugs into the country, how do we expect to seal the borders to terrorists entering and carrying no contraband?

Peetster

This may surprise some of you.

It is nothing like the war on terror. Terrorists want to kill you. I say kill them first. Over there, if possible.

The war on drugs, however, fights a victimless crime. The way I see it, no victim = no crime. I don't buy the argument that the user becomes the victim, that's like saying we can legislate stupidity and keep people from hurting themselves.

For a start, marijuana needs to be legalized. That will give a cash crop back to the unemployed tobacco farmers.

ARTelevision

A "war on drugs" is necessary because it allows us to target the vast and widely distributed powerful and dangerous groups of international lawbreakers who funnel a significant portion of the world's wealth into an array of illegal and destructive human enterprises.

__________________
create evolution

pan6467

One of Al-Quida's largest incomes came from the poppy fields (used for opiates) in Afghanistan.

There have been links between terrorists and Columbian druglords.

The problem is a double edged sword. Keep drugs illegal feed the terrorists millions upon millions. Legalize drugs and have a whacked out nation that will be far less productive but take the money away from the terrorists.

We need to face the fact drugs are not that hard to get. In fact, when I grew up in the 80's we used to joke how it was easier to get weed or blow than to get alcohol.

Working in rehab, today the joke is, it's easier for the kids to get Heroin, Ecstasy, and Meth than it is cigarettes.

With drugs and drug addiction the inescapable fact is whether legal or not it lowers your self esteem and self dignity enough that in the throes of it you will lose your morals. However, by making it legal and with better education (instead of just saying they are evil), people may get the help they need sooner rather than when they have gotten busted committing a crime or out of money and owing someone.

Big money in keeping them illegal though. RICO Act, the laws that say the government can take property.

However it costs twice as much to keep them illegal. Policing, crime, insurance paying the crime, murder, and so on.

It's a very very deep argument both ways. Both sides have their good points but both sides have their flaws.

Personally, it all goes to morals and as we have seen, once we allow a government to legislate morals they interfere in all aspects of personal life (marriage being the big one right now).

Plus by legalizing them and not having them as a taboo, perhaps use would go down. I firmly believe that those who want to will find a way to do them no matter what. Therefore, make them legal tax the hell out of them and let the cards fall where they will.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

shakran

Saudi Arabia is widely known to support terrorism. One of the main sources of revenue for Saudi Arabia is oil. Are you suggesting we should outlaw cars as well?

Additionally, why do you think the terrorists CAN make so much money off of drugs? It's BECAUSE of the drug war that drug prices are so high. If they were legal, they'd be widely available and would therefore command a much lower price. Look what happened during prohibition. Suddenly people who had paid big money for a top-quality bottle of scotch were now paying the same amount for some godawful swill mixed in someone's bathtub. The price skyrocketed BECAUSE of it's illegality.


Here's my view on the war on drugs.

Whether you think drugs are good, bad, or indifferent, the war on drugs is stupid. It's no different from prohibition. It's impossible to win the war. It can ONLY be a rathole down which we will pour gobs of money that could be more constructively used elsewhere. People want drugs too badly and the profits are too high for the producers to stop just because the feds are trying to stop them.

Anyone who says the war on drugs is a winnable war is delusional.

pan6467

For 1, the thread was about DRUGS, not oil or terrorism. Secondly, I was replying to a post that stated how we should use the money for the Drug war on terrorism. I was showing a direct correlation between the subject of this thread to what the poster brought up. Oil and terrorism is a different subject for a different thread.

Finally do not pull one sentance out and believe you know what I said. Since you make points that I made later on in my post, I can only assume you read only that first sentence and chose not to read anymore. Please before you quote me make sure you read all of what I say and not just a blurb, to make your point.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

shakran

Then why the hell did YOU mention terrorism? (that is what Al Qaeda does, btw - terrorism)



Your reasons for being illogical does not negate the lack of logic.


A false assumption. I read the rest of your post, but didn't strongly disagree with it as I did that sentence. I'm not going to waste 2 screens quoting your entire post if I only take issue with one line of it.

Not sure why you think you said the same thing I did. I don't think I said the same thing you said at all. Did YOU read MY post?

MSD

I came across the Libertarian Party's official stance on Drugs the other day, and was delighted to find that an organized political party saw the problem exactly as I do. My philosophy is that those who hurt themselves should be helped, not punished, and that those who hurt others should be punished accordingly while simultaneously making an attempt to reform them (which is not always possible.)

I disagree. If substances are decriminalized and made into legitimate cash crops, those widely distributed powerful and dangerous groups of international lawbreakers will lose a significant part of their business, and the remaining portions of that business can be dealt with directly.

The war on drugs in the US mainly targets small-time offenders whose only crime is having a good time. Dealers and drug runners are occasionally caught, but the end result is that we stuff our prisons full of nonviolent drug users who get 20 years for smoking a joint while murderers, rapists, and abusive parents and spouses walk out after 5.

At the same time, we ship military equipment abroad along with billions of dollars that are used sporadically to attack drug crops, but mainly (esp. in South America) to fight off opposition groups who are forced to resort to guerilla and terroristic strategies to be heard. The real problems, the dangerous crime synidcates, simply go where the money is. To dust crops with herbicides and kill off the workers in the fields who are just desparate to feed their families in an attempt to stop these syndicates is like trying to kill someone by sending a pack of rats to bite at his toes.

What better way to shrivel the bank accounts of drug lords than to take their business from them and turn it into jobs for Americans that produce a safer (not safe) alternative to street drugs that are contaminated with fillers and laced with every substance known to man? I agree with Peetster that the legalization of marijuana will give a legitimate cash crop back to unemployed tobacco farmers.

BigGov

I know you're not the first one to say this type of argument pan, but I'm confused. How does the legalization of drugs automatically cause everyone to be "whacked out"? Just because something is legal doesn't mean everyone will do it. There will be a huge anti-drug group, much like the anti-smokers of today.

With the massive drug culture of today, it would make sense to legalize drugs, not only would it remove power from terrorists, but far more importantly it would clean up the streets of our nation by taking drugs out of the hands of shady drug dealers and gangs and put it into the hands of the private sector where it could be taxed.

__________________
One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"

Zeld2.0

This always hearkens me back to the argument over cell phones in high school...

As they were becoming popular and widespread in the mid 90's, schools were banning them completely from campus. Period.

But now, most schools allow them provided their off.

Now what might this have to do with drugs?

It's just that if people really want to do something (in this case, bring phones) and the rules are put to block it, you suddenly have a problem where phones have to be taken away and the usual crap with parents going to the administration to retrieve and so on.

Now that its suddenly not a problem to bring it to school (as long as its silent and what not), that extra side stuff (getting it taken away and getting it back) is cut out and the fact is, people don't use em in class at all still.

Similar I see it is the entire drug thing - if it is illegal, there is more of that factor that drives prices up. If it is legal, prices go down and the money is gone. We won't have to pay for a large part of the extra bureaucracy used to fight this losing war.

And, those who want to do drugs, will still do drugs - those who don't want to, won't. And if drugs were legal, IMO, it wouldn't have that 'cool' factor anymore attached to being a 'bad boy' or whatever.

pan6467

Good point. And I am for the legalization of drugs.

The "whacked out" comment should not have been used. It was very insensitive and as a counsellor I should have known better. I do feel, if legal it will affect productivity to some degree, at least for a year or so, in that we would see people who did not try drugs because they were illegal use them and since they may not have had experience end up losing time from work to recover. Yet, now drug use is high anyway so that argument really is a bad one.

My whole post above, was to show both sides of the argument and to show why I have come to the conclusion and belief on the subject.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

DJ Happy

I know this has little to do with the topic at hand, but I felt I should respond to this particular statement:

Are you an Arab, shakran? I ask because your nick is very similar to the Arabic word for "thank you."

As someone who lives in Saudi, I have to query the quoted statement. In Saudi we hear of suspected terrorists being arrested or killed by the Saudi security forces on an almost daily basis. Shootouts are regular, illegal arms confiscations are commonplace and a number of Saudi soldiers and police have lost their lives in these battles. To me, this does not sound like the actions of supporters of terrorism.

As for the topic, I think that the illegalisation of drugs is one of the biggest hypocrisies in existance today. It's backed up by baseless arguments and scaremongering that are never borne out in practice, while depriving resources to truly worthwhile causes. Personally, I'd rather the police were trying to catch rapists and murderers than some kid smoking a joint while watching TV at home.

MSD

I would guess that he is referring to the money that the Saudi royal familty gives to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Giving money to families of terrorists is condoning and supporting those terrorists.

DJ Happy

In that case the US also supports terrorism, as its unwavering and unquestioning support of Israel has demonstrated.

onetime2

I've refrained from commenting since my opinions generally vary greatly with the legalization crowd.

I just have some questions that may (or may not) generate some discussion. Let's say we go the "legalization" route on drugs.

Which would be legalized? Just pot? All drugs? LSD, speed, coke, crack, etc? If not all of them, then you'll still have a vast network of drug dealers and users who resort to violence to achieve their goals.

What would be the criteria for getting the drugs and how would the process work? Anyone who feels like getting high could get them? What about age limits? Will only those over the age of 18 (or maybe 21 since you can't get alcohol till you're 21) be able to get them? If so, what will stop the illegal distribution of drugs to those under the age of 18?

Who will control the distribution of them? Will they be distributed Over the Counter (OTC)? Or would a more rigorous provess be needed? If so, it seems to make sense to me that the pharmaceutical industry would be best equipped to handle it and would likely get the nod from the government. Would you need to get a doctor's approval? Would the pharma industry/medical professions being a main player in it be a problem to those advocating legalization? Will certain professions be banned from using? Police, fire, doctors, etc?

Who will ultimately be sued by those hurt by them? Will the government be liable because they knew the risks associated with them and still legalized them? Will the pharma companies be sued (assuming they are involved) like the gun companies and cigarette manufacturers?

What will happen to the sophisticated drug running operations already in existence? Does anyone think these criminal organizations will just melt away? They will likely continue operating with inferior product selling to those who can't get drugs within the new system.

I'm sure there are plenty of other questions that are relevant but these spring to mind right now.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

noahfor

We steal peoples LIVES for posessing substances that will proabably not do any harm to anyone. I think it's serious. Locking someone up for their entire life for driving some weed accross a state border is as bad as murder, but murderers don't go around thinking they are doing the right thing. Thinking about people's lives being taken away for actions that will not harm anyone is like reading the crucible. If I were God, and who is to say God doesn't think like me, I would be sending the people who are actively involved in imprisoning people for innocuous drug related acts to hell.

DJ Happy

All drugs. No more dealers.

Quote:

What would be the criteria for getting the drugs and how would the process work? Anyone who feels like getting high could get them? What about age limits? Will only those over the age of 18 (or maybe 21 since you can't get alcohol till you're 21) be able to get them? If so, what will stop the illegal distribution of drugs to those under the age of 18?

The same as cigarettes and alcohol - age limits. What will stop the illegal distribution to underage users is the same thing that stops the distribution of alcohol and cigarettes to underage users - the underage market is just not a viable one. No-one is going to be bothered about going out of their way to supply them. Obviously some of them will get their hands on some illcit goodies, but that happens now anyway.

Quote:

Who will control the distribution of them? Will they be distributed Over the Counter (OTC)? Or would a more rigorous provess be needed? If so, it seems to make sense to me that the pharmaceutical industry would be best equipped to handle it and would likely get the nod from the government. Would you need to get a doctor's approval? Would the pharma industry/medical professions being a main player in it be a problem to those advocating legalization? Will certain professions be banned from using? Police, fire, doctors, etc?

I imagine the drug shops of tomorrow would be like the booze and porn shops of today. A doctor's approval would be unnecessary. No professions would be banned from using by law, although, as is the case in anything, if usage started interfering with performance, then action would be necessary (against the individual concerned - I'm not talking about reviewing the laws).

Obviously I would be happier if our doctors, firemen and police weren't high on the job, but there's nothing stopping them being so now in any case. Just as there are regulations about them under the influence of alcohol at work, those same restrictions would apply to narcotics.

By the way, do you know that amphetamines are often distributed to army personnel, especially those involved in night-time operations? I'd rather that was stopped too.

Quote:

Who will ultimately be sued by those hurt by them? Will the government be liable because they knew the risks associated with them and still legalized them? Will the pharma companies be sued (assuming they are involved) like the gun companies and cigarette manufacturers?

No-one will be sued, as the drug distributors will have learnt from the mistakes of the tobacco industry. The public will be aware of the consequences of their actions and will be making informed choices. The consequences are then their responsibility, not the manufacturer's.

Quote:

What will happen to the sophisticated drug running operations already in existence? Does anyone think these criminal organizations will just melt away? They will likely continue operating with inferior product selling to those who can't get drugs within the new system.

There is no new system, so yes, the drug traffickers will just melt away. Just like there is no 'black market' alcohol trade (other than those smuggling to cheat on tax payments), there will be no 'black-market' drug trade. What would be the point?

Warf Rat

onetime@, this is the discussion I was hoping to bring out.
My feeling is that we should legelize pot and the plan should be as follows. If it were legal to grow pot but not to sell it, you take the least harmful drug and remove both the money spent on it and the money that law enforcement spends on it. Also you would need to have a place to grow it. That means you would have to own land or grow indoors. This would limit but not stop the use by minors. After all it can't be easy to hide six foot smelly plants from your parents, and minors don't own much land. This also makes taxing pot a non issue. As for those who grow for profit, as I stated at earlier federal prisons are for violent crimes. We could look for alternative punishments for sellers (maybe community service or something). I think if you make them work with underprivleged or children born addicted because of thier parents actions, it could have the greatest effect, but what do I know. Also I think addictive drugs like herion should be considered differently, I have know too many addicts and at some point they all lost their ability to make the chioce to do drugs or not to. If you are making a profit by creating brain dead slaves to your product, there needs to be a serious punishment. So far nobody has addressed this fact.

__________________
A day late, and a dollar short.

DJ Happy

The "brain dead" slaves didn't start out that way. They chose to go down that route of their own free will, knowing full well the consequences of their actions. Legalising the substance will increase the level of awareness and education regarding its use, meaning that everyone will know exactly what they are getting themselves into.

In my opinion, legalising growing it for personal use and prohibiting selling will do nothing. I can grow my own potatoes of I want, but I don't. It's far more convenient for me to pay someone else to do it for me.

And why would you not want pot to be taxed? The revenues it could generate could lead to a reduction in income tax, something that benefits everyone.

Warf Rat

JHappy, I just think that wholesale legalization has many problems and you are right about people making a choice to go down that road. However having been though it, I have to say it's not such a clear choice, you never know when you lost control until it's to late. Every addict I know feels ashamed to some deree and swears that this will be the last time ect. but they can't stop and it's not just a question of self control. It goes to your piont of knowing the consequences of your actions. Nobody thinks they will end up disgusting out of control addicts. it happens slowly, which I feel is the reason that addictives drugs are different than non-addictive drugs. Choice does go away.

__________________
A day late, and a dollar short.

DJ Happy

But it goes away whether it's legal or not. If people want to do it, they will do it, and no laws are going to stop them. So we might as well legalise it, regulate it and benefit from it. Making it illegal does absolutely nothing, except divert scarce resources to vainly trying to control it while more important issues are neglected.

In my opinion, anyway.

Warf Rat

Your probably right. I was looking for opinions, not just people who agree with me, but when you say regulate and benefit from it, that scares me a bit. Do we really want any part of the profits from drug sales?

__________________
A day late, and a dollar short.

Stompy

The unfortunate reality of it all is that drugs (especially marijuana) will NOT be legalized anytime soon.

We'd be lucky to even see it in our lifetime.

__________________
I love lamp.

shakran

I didn't know that. Cool. No, I'm not Arab - when I got here it was already populated by like, half the internet so all my usual aliases were taken. This one's a hybrid of several of them that I threw together in the hopes it would be unique



Yup, that's exactly right Mr.SD.

ARTelevision

I used illegal drugs for many years at my own personal risk. It was my choice. I never pushed for their legalization. I realized that most of the population - including myself in hindsight - can not handle psychoactive self-prescription.

I don't comprehend the need to try to make public policy about individual choices.

For example, I've lived with 2 women for many years but I never proselytize for legalized polygamy.

I hear a lot of "me! me! me!" behind many calls for public policy changes.

Just because you think something is OK for you - it doesn't mean that it makes smart public policy to legislate it.

__________________
create evolution

World's King

Drugs are winning.

__________________
heavy is the head that wears the crown

BigGov

If we do legalize it, yes, tax the hell out of it.

The costs of production are fairly low, and the prices many people are accustomed to paying are fairly high. Keep the prices the same, and tax a large amount of that price.

Therefore drugs would help to pay for any harm they may cause to society. (Or decrease the deficit which wouldn't be too bad)

__________________
One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"

assilem

I believe the government should not be in the business of illegalizing choices you want to make with your own body and life. You can almost place the drug legalization issue and abortion rights issue in the same category. They should also not be in the business of collecting income tax and redistributing that money for whatever purpose. And if you really want to get going on the libertarian thing then they should also not be issuing marriage licenses (gay or straight) and providing public schools.

__________________
The mother of mankind, what time his pride
Had cast him out from Heaven, with all his host
Of rebel Angels

Flat

While I agree that the War on Drugs is a massive failure I'm not sure I'd feel too comfortable with deragulation of EVERY drug.

Think about how and what the companies try to sell to you. Would you be comfortable with ads for heroin on TV ? MAybe they should have a mandatory exam on the effects of heavy drugs before they let you have them or have you consult with a doctor or whatever.

I'm rambling, but my point is that there should be a way to make sure you know all about what you're putting in your system. Then you can fuck yourself up as bad as you wish; your decision, your problem.

__________________
<advertise here>