Which drugs do you think should be legal for personal use?

[Four49]

It's actually NESS, not NEST.  And there's no proof he ever said that.  You should stop basing your positions on Hollywood.  I don't like to get personal, but c'mon, movies are there to entertain which unfortunately has the side effect of a misinformed public.

LOL
I see you side stepped the important part of my reply?

If fully automatic machine guns were made legal today, would the sale of them go up or down?

The gun issue doesn't really support your argument.  The people that use guns, any guns, to commit a crime aren't exactly worried about wether they obtained it legally. 

Do you think if all guns were made illegal, ownership would go down? 

The point is, making something illegal, doesn't make it go away.  And it certainly doesn't erase any associated problems.  It makes them worse.  Criminalizing something, only makes more criminals.  Just look at the percentage of prisoners that got busted for possession, or intent to distribute, when their only crime was being stupid enough to drive around with their own 'personal' stash.

And the coke addicted baby thing is just ridiculous.  What proof do you have that the number of addicts would go up?  Let alone, the number of children born to addicts?

Here's where the debate always goes sour.  Your argument isn't based on any facts, just opinions you developed in order to support your argument.

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

[MK]

It's actually NESS, not NEST.  And there's no proof he ever said that.  You should stop basing your positions on Hollywood.  I don't like to get personal, but c'mon, movies are there to entertain which unfortunately has the side effect of a misinformed public.

LOL
I see you side stepped the important part of my reply?

If fully automatic machine guns were made legal today, would the sale of them go up or down?

The gun issue doesn't really support your argument.  The people that use guns, any guns, to commit a crime aren't exactly worried about wether they obtained it legally.  Do you think if all guns were made illegal, ownership would go down? 

The point is, making something illegal, doesn't make it go away.  And it certainly doesn't erase any associated problems.  It makes them worse.  Criminalizing something, only makes more criminals.  Just look at the percentage of prisoners that got busted for possession, or intent to distribute, when their only crime was being stupid enough to drive around with their own 'personal' stash.

And the coke addicted baby thing is just ridiculous.  What proof do you have that the number of addicts would go up?  Let alone, the number of children born to addicts?

Here's where the debate always goes sour.  Your argument isn't based on any facts, just opinions you developed in order to support your argument.

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Yes it does, the argument is that by making drugs legal useage would decrease.  This is nonsense to assume. My gun argument highlights that - If right now a order by lawmakers that ALL GUNS ARE LEGAL for sell , you can better bet that FULLY automatic guns would sky rocket in sales, and iam not talking about people who commit crimes.  Iam talking about gun lovers like myself and others would love to have a fully auto AK or  AR-15.  Just like if a meth head found out today it was now legal to buy meth, and no worries of being caught.

You are trying to make this into another topic, although you did say that drug use would decrease when made legal.   That's ridiculously silly thinking.

[Mint]

People that are inclined to do drugs are going to do them regardless of the penalties. There's a reason why drug prices overall have actually gone down since we implemented the war on drugs. It's because the demand is so high that things like heroin are more economical to produce and distribute than ever before. There's a lot of arguments to be made against ending all restrictions on drugs but this really isn't one of them.

[MK]

People that are inclined to do drugs are going to do them regardless of the penalties. There's a reason why drug prices overall have actually gone down since we implemented the war on drugs. It's because the demand is so high that things like heroin are more economical to produce and distribute than ever before. There's a lot of arguments to be made against ending all restrictions on drugs but this really isn't one of them.

Like the Sig Mint.

Just get rid of the McCain tag..

Too bad they wouldn't let Bill pull a FDR.

[Redefeatbush04]

It's actually NESS, not NEST.  And there's no proof he ever said that.  You should stop basing your positions on Hollywood.  I don't like to get personal, but c'mon, movies are there to entertain which unfortunately has the side effect of a misinformed public.

LOL
I see you side stepped the important part of my reply?

If fully automatic machine guns were made legal today, would the sale of them go up or down?

The gun issue doesn't really support your argument.  The people that use guns, any guns, to commit a crime aren't exactly worried about wether they obtained it legally.  Do you think if all guns were made illegal, ownership would go down? 

The point is, making something illegal, doesn't make it go away.  And it certainly doesn't erase any associated problems.  It makes them worse.  Criminalizing something, only makes more criminals.  Just look at the percentage of prisoners that got busted for possession, or intent to distribute, when their only crime was being stupid enough to drive around with their own 'personal' stash.

And the coke addicted baby thing is just ridiculous.  What proof do you have that the number of addicts would go up?  Let alone, the number of children born to addicts?

Here's where the debate always goes sour.  Your argument isn't based on any facts, just opinions you developed in order to support your argument.

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Yes it does, the argument is that by making drugs legal useage would decrease.  This is nonsense to assume. My gun argument highlights that - If right now a order by lawmakers that ALL GUNS ARE LEGAL for sell , you can better bet that FULLY automatic guns would sky rocket in sales, and iam not talking about people who commit crimes.  Iam talking about gun lovers like myself and others would love to have a fully auto AK or  AR-15.  Just like if a meth head found out today it was now legal to buy meth, and no worries of being caught.

You are trying to make this into another topic, although you did say that drug use would decrease when made legal.   That's ridiculously silly thinking.

If you could get guns both legally and illegally and intended to commit a crime......through which means would you acquire the gun? Probablly the one that would be harder to trace to you right? This is why criminals continue to use the black market..... and as you mentioned......the rise in sales is for those who want to acquire it for legitimate use. It shouldn't be an easy process to go and get heroin legally. It should be those who legitimately need it. If you were foolish enough to try heroin and become hooked, would you rather hide from all those that do not know of your addiction for fear of incarceration while making purchases from shady, often armed, heroin dealers  that sell you a product of questionable safety. Or.......fill out paperwork and buy from the US government, which heavily regulates heroin sales to confirmed addicts (simple blood test required) at lower than street prices as part of a program aimed to reduce heroin use and transition to methadone/buprenorphine. They clearly aren't going to be able to sell that heroin to non-users either. I don't see the spike occuring with heroin. I do see it with mushrooms / LSD but I don't think it is a cause for concern. It will probablly be short and most new users will be those that have no idea what it is like to trip because honest drug education is illegal. They are told by some people that they will see gnomes and by other that they will "expand their mind". Why not just explain what is actually happening to the brain on each drug and why this leads us to perceive what we perceive. 

[MK]

It's actually NESS, not NEST.  And there's no proof he ever said that.  You should stop basing your positions on Hollywood.  I don't like to get personal, but c'mon, movies are there to entertain which unfortunately has the side effect of a misinformed public.

LOL
I see you side stepped the important part of my reply?

If fully automatic machine guns were made legal today, would the sale of them go up or down?

The gun issue doesn't really support your argument.  The people that use guns, any guns, to commit a crime aren't exactly worried about wether they obtained it legally.  Do you think if all guns were made illegal, ownership would go down? 

The point is, making something illegal, doesn't make it go away.  And it certainly doesn't erase any associated problems.  It makes them worse.  Criminalizing something, only makes more criminals.  Just look at the percentage of prisoners that got busted for possession, or intent to distribute, when their only crime was being stupid enough to drive around with their own 'personal' stash.

And the coke addicted baby thing is just ridiculous.  What proof do you have that the number of addicts would go up?  Let alone, the number of children born to addicts?

Here's where the debate always goes sour.  Your argument isn't based on any facts, just opinions you developed in order to support your argument.

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Yes it does, the argument is that by making drugs legal useage would decrease.  This is nonsense to assume. My gun argument highlights that - If right now a order by lawmakers that ALL GUNS ARE LEGAL for sell , you can better bet that FULLY automatic guns would sky rocket in sales, and iam not talking about people who commit crimes.  Iam talking about gun lovers like myself and others would love to have a fully auto AK or  AR-15.  Just like if a meth head found out today it was now legal to buy meth, and no worries of being caught.

You are trying to make this into another topic, although you did say that drug use would decrease when made legal.   That's ridiculously silly thinking.

If you could get guns both legally and illegally and intended to commit a crime......through which means would you acquire the gun? Probablly the one that would be harder to trace to you right? This is why criminals continue to use the black market..... and as you mentioned......the rise in sales is for those who want to acquire it for legitimate use. It shouldn't be an easy process to go and get heroin legally. It should be those who legitimately need it. If you were foolish enough to try heroin and become hooked, would you rather hide from all those that do not know of your addiction for fear of incarceration while making purchases from shady, often armed, heroin dealers  that sell you a product of questionable safety. Or.......fill out paperwork and buy from the US government, which heavily regulates heroin sales to confirmed addicts (simple blood test required) at lower than street prices as part of a program aimed to reduce heroin use and transition to methadone/buprenorphine. They clearly aren't going to be able to sell that heroin to non-users either. I don't see the spike occuring with heroin. I do see it with mushrooms / LSD but I don't think it is a cause for concern. It will probablly be short and most new users will be those that have no idea what it is like to trip because honest drug education is illegal. They are told by some people that they will see gnomes and by other that they will "expand their mind". Why not just explain what is actually happening to the brain on each drug and why this leads us to perceive what we perceive. 

What are you smoking dope while typing this?

I mean really this making hard drugs legal debate is ridiculous in itself.

My god.

[Redefeatbush04]

It's actually NESS, not NEST.  And there's no proof he ever said that.  You should stop basing your positions on Hollywood.  I don't like to get personal, but c'mon, movies are there to entertain which unfortunately has the side effect of a misinformed public.

LOL
I see you side stepped the important part of my reply?

If fully automatic machine guns were made legal today, would the sale of them go up or down?

The gun issue doesn't really support your argument.  The people that use guns, any guns, to commit a crime aren't exactly worried about wether they obtained it legally.  Do you think if all guns were made illegal, ownership would go down? 

The point is, making something illegal, doesn't make it go away.  And it certainly doesn't erase any associated problems.  It makes them worse.  Criminalizing something, only makes more criminals.  Just look at the percentage of prisoners that got busted for possession, or intent to distribute, when their only crime was being stupid enough to drive around with their own 'personal' stash.

And the coke addicted baby thing is just ridiculous.  What proof do you have that the number of addicts would go up?  Let alone, the number of children born to addicts?

Here's where the debate always goes sour.  Your argument isn't based on any facts, just opinions you developed in order to support your argument.

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Yes it does, the argument is that by making drugs legal useage would decrease.  This is nonsense to assume. My gun argument highlights that - If right now a order by lawmakers that ALL GUNS ARE LEGAL for sell , you can better bet that FULLY automatic guns would sky rocket in sales, and iam not talking about people who commit crimes.  Iam talking about gun lovers like myself and others would love to have a fully auto AK or  AR-15.  Just like if a meth head found out today it was now legal to buy meth, and no worries of being caught.

You are trying to make this into another topic, although you did say that drug use would decrease when made legal.   That's ridiculously silly thinking.

If you could get guns both legally and illegally and intended to commit a crime......through which means would you acquire the gun? Probablly the one that would be harder to trace to you right? This is why criminals continue to use the black market..... and as you mentioned......the rise in sales is for those who want to acquire it for legitimate use. It shouldn't be an easy process to go and get heroin legally. It should be those who legitimately need it. If you were foolish enough to try heroin and become hooked, would you rather hide from all those that do not know of your addiction for fear of incarceration while making purchases from shady, often armed, heroin dealers  that sell you a product of questionable safety. Or.......fill out paperwork and buy from the US government, which heavily regulates heroin sales to confirmed addicts (simple blood test required) at lower than street prices as part of a program aimed to reduce heroin use and transition to methadone/buprenorphine. They clearly aren't going to be able to sell that heroin to non-users either. I don't see the spike occuring with heroin. I do see it with mushrooms / LSD but I don't think it is a cause for concern. It will probablly be short and most new users will be those that have no idea what it is like to trip because honest drug education is illegal. They are told by some people that they will see gnomes and by other that they will "expand their mind". Why not just explain what is actually happening to the brain on each drug and why this leads us to perceive what we perceive. 

What are you smoking dope while typing this?

I mean really this making hard drugs legal debate is ridiculous in itself.

My god.

why don't you read and respond rather than make false accusations. don't post here again until you are ready to grow up and have a mature discussion

[Sbane]

It's actually NESS, not NEST.  And there's no proof he ever said that.  You should stop basing your positions on Hollywood.  I don't like to get personal, but c'mon, movies are there to entertain which unfortunately has the side effect of a misinformed public.

LOL
I see you side stepped the important part of my reply?

If fully automatic machine guns were made legal today, would the sale of them go up or down?

The gun issue doesn't really support your argument.  The people that use guns, any guns, to commit a crime aren't exactly worried about wether they obtained it legally.  Do you think if all guns were made illegal, ownership would go down? 

The point is, making something illegal, doesn't make it go away.  And it certainly doesn't erase any associated problems.  It makes them worse.  Criminalizing something, only makes more criminals.  Just look at the percentage of prisoners that got busted for possession, or intent to distribute, when their only crime was being stupid enough to drive around with their own 'personal' stash.

And the coke addicted baby thing is just ridiculous.  What proof do you have that the number of addicts would go up?  Let alone, the number of children born to addicts?

Here's where the debate always goes sour.  Your argument isn't based on any facts, just opinions you developed in order to support your argument.

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Yes it does, the argument is that by making drugs legal useage would decrease.  This is nonsense to assume. My gun argument highlights that - If right now a order by lawmakers that ALL GUNS ARE LEGAL for sell , you can better bet that FULLY automatic guns would sky rocket in sales, and iam not talking about people who commit crimes.  Iam talking about gun lovers like myself and others would love to have a fully auto AK or  AR-15.  Just like if a meth head found out today it was now legal to buy meth, and no worries of being caught.

You are trying to make this into another topic, although you did say that drug use would decrease when made legal.   That's ridiculously silly thinking.

If you could get guns both legally and illegally and intended to commit a crime......through which means would you acquire the gun? Probablly the one that would be harder to trace to you right? This is why criminals continue to use the black market..... and as you mentioned......the rise in sales is for those who want to acquire it for legitimate use. It shouldn't be an easy process to go and get heroin legally. It should be those who legitimately need it. If you were foolish enough to try heroin and become hooked, would you rather hide from all those that do not know of your addiction for fear of incarceration while making purchases from shady, often armed, heroin dealers  that sell you a product of questionable safety. Or.......fill out paperwork and buy from the US government, which heavily regulates heroin sales to confirmed addicts (simple blood test required) at lower than street prices as part of a program aimed to reduce heroin use and transition to methadone/buprenorphine. They clearly aren't going to be able to sell that heroin to non-users either. I don't see the spike occuring with heroin. I do see it with mushrooms / LSD but I don't think it is a cause for concern. It will probablly be short and most new users will be those that have no idea what it is like to trip because honest drug education is illegal. They are told by some people that they will see gnomes and by other that they will "expand their mind". Why not just explain what is actually happening to the brain on each drug and why this leads us to perceive what we perceive. 

What are you smoking dope while typing this?

I mean really this making hard drugs legal debate is ridiculous in itself.

My god.

Why are you posting on a political forum if you can't even have a mature debate? Do you think you are always right and others are always wrong? Heroin addicts aren't going to stop using whether or not it is illegal. Then don't you think it would be better to provide them clean needles and a safe place to do it, but I would also require rehabilitation at the same time. It's a complex issue dawg, you can't just make blanket statements. In regards to hallucinagens, since they are not addictive, I don't know why they are illegal. Now if people under their influence are disturbing other people, then they should be put in jail where they belong. You don't have the right to tell anyone else what they can do in the safety of their home.

[Person Man]

Alcohol
Tobacco
Marijuana
LSD
'Shrooms
Salvia

[Four49]

It's actually NESS, not NEST.  And there's no proof he ever said that.  You should stop basing your positions on Hollywood.  I don't like to get personal, but c'mon, movies are there to entertain which unfortunately has the side effect of a misinformed public.

LOL
I see you side stepped the important part of my reply?

If fully automatic machine guns were made legal today, would the sale of them go up or down?

The gun issue doesn't really support your argument.  The people that use guns, any guns, to commit a crime aren't exactly worried about wether they obtained it legally.  Do you think if all guns were made illegal, ownership would go down? 

The point is, making something illegal, doesn't make it go away.  And it certainly doesn't erase any associated problems.  It makes them worse.  Criminalizing something, only makes more criminals.  Just look at the percentage of prisoners that got busted for possession, or intent to distribute, when their only crime was being stupid enough to drive around with their own 'personal' stash.

And the coke addicted baby thing is just ridiculous.  What proof do you have that the number of addicts would go up?  Let alone, the number of children born to addicts?

Here's where the debate always goes sour.  Your argument isn't based on any facts, just opinions you developed in order to support your argument.

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Yes it does, the argument is that by making drugs legal useage would decrease.  This is nonsense to assume. My gun argument highlights that - If right now a order by lawmakers that ALL GUNS ARE LEGAL for sell , you can better bet that FULLY automatic guns would sky rocket in sales, and iam not talking about people who commit crimes.  Iam talking about gun lovers like myself and others would love to have a fully auto AK or  AR-15.  Just like if a meth head found out today it was now legal to buy meth, and no worries of being caught.

You are trying to make this into another topic, although you did say that drug use would decrease when made legal.   That's ridiculously silly thinking.

If you could get guns both legally and illegally and intended to commit a crime......through which means would you acquire the gun? Probablly the one that would be harder to trace to you right? This is why criminals continue to use the black market..... and as you mentioned......the rise in sales is for those who want to acquire it for legitimate use. It shouldn't be an easy process to go and get heroin legally. It should be those who legitimately need it. If you were foolish enough to try heroin and become hooked, would you rather hide from all those that do not know of your addiction for fear of incarceration while making purchases from shady, often armed, heroin dealers  that sell you a product of questionable safety. Or.......fill out paperwork and buy from the US government, which heavily regulates heroin sales to confirmed addicts (simple blood test required) at lower than street prices as part of a program aimed to reduce heroin use and transition to methadone/buprenorphine. They clearly aren't going to be able to sell that heroin to non-users either. I don't see the spike occuring with heroin. I do see it with mushrooms / LSD but I don't think it is a cause for concern. It will probablly be short and most new users will be those that have no idea what it is like to trip because honest drug education is illegal. They are told by some people that they will see gnomes and by other that they will "expand their mind". Why not just explain what is actually happening to the brain on each drug and why this leads us to perceive what we perceive. 

What are you smoking dope while typing this?

I mean really this making hard drugs legal debate is ridiculous in itself.

My god.

Why is it ridiculous?  I think the heart of the matter is whether or not drugs should be a personal choice.  I actually believe this debate to be a great metaphor for what our country should be.  Should individuals have absolute control over every aspect of their lives (as long as they're not hurting anybody else) or should we allow the state a certain control over our lives in the name of 'protection'?

And if we allow state control, who gets to decide what's right and wrong?

From a personal perspective, I think drugs are great.  Very useful tools on the road to self discovery.  But, when asked, I don't tell people they should do them, I tell them of my experiences and they decide for themselves. 

Who am I to tell them what to do with their bodies?  That's the real argument. 

[MK]

No, you can do anything you want with your body in this country. We do have Laws + regulations, and  if the libertarianism in you thinks that a better America means free reign, then you are sadly on the wrong side of reality.

What you are advocating is pure lunacy. Making hard extreme drugs legal would cause more problems in the long run, then worrying about saving a few pennies on some drug war you think is useless.

Some of you have such a liberal stance that I don't really know how to debate you without laughing

You can't be serious?   

Like I have asked before how will society care for and pay for the attendant social costs of increased drug use, including family disintegration and child neglect?  Right now, a major misperception in the legalization debate is being driven by the perception that the costs of solving the drug problem in America are far too high, which is a myth.  Another misperception is that it’s the fact they are illegal is what drives the crime in poor inner city communities.   Let’s talk about the economics... The 1# question that has to be asked is who will sell drugs? The government? Private companies?   Because I have heard different answers, although some of you here seem to be advocating an "open market" type of setup - to where we would basically dump the drug laws, and whoever is dealing would just deal.  Ok... how does that solve the addicts need to have more cash to support a habit?  I’m sure just because drugs are made legal to buy or use the dealers aren’t just going to sell them for peanuts.  The drug cartails would still be in business, so really you would solve nothing on that front ( it would be like big oil part 2 ).   Now, you say that by dumping our war on drugs it could free up huge sums of money that could be better spent on rehab centers and drug education?   If that’s the ideal, it’s foolish to think that by cutting the money spent on the drug war would be enough to pay for the huge increase of users and high crime rates that would soon follow after.  It’s simply doesn’t add up to enough because you are not considering  Higher crime, higher health insurance  rates( if using our current system)  which leads me to my next question, but I want somebody to explain whose going to be in charge of the selling first.

[Matt Damon™]

Families disintegrate when members of them are sent to prison under draconian drug laws.

[Earth]

No, you can do anything you want with your body in this country. We do have Laws + regulations, and  if the libertarianism in you thinks that a better America means free reign, then you are sadly on the wrong side of reality.

What you are advocating is pure lunacy. Making hard extreme drugs legal would cause more problems in the long run, then worrying about saving a few pennies on some drug war you think is useless.

Some of you have such a liberal stance that I don't really know how to debate you without laughing

You can't be serious?   

You can finally stop playing the victim, and saying we're ganging up on you. Take this bullshít elsewhere. You can say this all you like, but you never post evidence to back up your claims.

Like I have asked before how will society care for and pay for the attendant social costs of increased drug use, including family disintegration and child neglect?

First off, do you have evidence that says drug use will dramatically skyrocket? Society in either case, will not have to pay for "family disintegration" or child neglect anymore than the current situation. More to the point, who's paying for these ills now?

Right now, a major misperception in the legalization debate is being driven by the perception that the costs of solving the drug problem in America are far too high, which is a myth. 

Evidence for it being a myth?

Another misperception is that it’s the fact they are illegal is what drives the crime in poor inner city communities.   Let’s talk about the economics... The 1# question that has to be asked is who will sell drugs? The government? Private companies?   Because I have heard different answers, although some of you here seem to be advocating an "open market" type of setup - to where we would basically dump the drug laws, and whoever is dealing would just deal.  Ok... how does that solve the addicts need to have more cash to support a habit?

Then do us a favor, and clear up these "misconceptions" about drug use, and economics. Post some evidence.

As I've said before, by making drugs legal, regular businesses, even individual people could now sell drugs without the threat of punishment. I never said this would solve the addict's dilemma. With drugs being illegal now, the addict runs a greater risk of turning to crime to buy his drugs because of the high price. By making it legal, the price of drugs would drop, because of the creation of legal sellers (which would probably be regulated by government). Therefore, the addict now might not have to resort to anything criminal.

I’m sure just because drugs are made legal to buy or use the dealers aren’t just going to sell them for peanuts.  The drug cartails would still be in business, so really you would solve nothing on that front ( it would be like big oil part 2 ).

The drug cartels would have to drop their prices if more people were involved in selling drugs once they are legal. If there's an influx of any item that was once prohibited, prices automatically drop. This takes away the cartels power, because they no longer hold a monopoly over the trade.

Now, you say that by dumping our war on drugs it could free up huge sums of money that could be better spent on rehab centers and drug education?   If that’s the ideal, it’s foolish to think that by cutting the money spent on the drug war would be enough to pay for the huge increase of users and high crime rates that would soon follow after.

It's not foolish at all considering in 1999 alone, 30 Billion dollars were wasted in the war on drugs. That money could be used in a better way, from free clinics, to rehab centers, to education, anything. Once again, you've provided nothing that says there would be a "huge increase in users" or a higher crime rate.

It’s simply doesn’t add up to enough because you are not considering  Higher crime, higher health insurance  rates( if using our current system)  which leads me to my next question, but I want somebody to explain whose going to be in charge of the selling first.

Explain the higher crime scenario. If drugs become legal, less people go to prison because it's no longer a criminal offense, addicts could now afford what they need because of it's availability. Why are you mixing in health insurance when that is not based on anything related to the drug war? See above for the part on selling.

[Four49]

No, you can do anything you want with your body in this country. We do have Laws + regulations, and  if the libertarianism in you thinks that a better America means free reign, then you are sadly on the wrong side of reality.

What you are advocating is pure lunacy. Making hard extreme drugs legal would cause more problems in the long run, then worrying about saving a few pennies on some drug war you think is useless.

Some of you have such a liberal stance that I don't really know how to debate you without laughing

You can't be serious?   

You can finally stop playing the victim, and saying we're ganging up on you. Take this bullshít elsewhere. You can say this all you like, but you never post evidence to back up your claims.

Like I have asked before how will society care for and pay for the attendant social costs of increased drug use, including family disintegration and child neglect?

First off, do you have evidence that says drug use will dramatically skyrocket? Society in either case, will not have to pay for "family disintegration" or child neglect anymore than the current situation. More to the point, who's paying for these ills now?

Right now, a major misperception in the legalization debate is being driven by the perception that the costs of solving the drug problem in America are far too high, which is a myth. 

Evidence for it being a myth?

Another misperception is that it’s the fact they are illegal is what drives the crime in poor inner city communities.   Let’s talk about the economics... The 1# question that has to be asked is who will sell drugs? The government? Private companies?   Because I have heard different answers, although some of you here seem to be advocating an "open market" type of setup - to where we would basically dump the drug laws, and whoever is dealing would just deal.  Ok... how does that solve the addicts need to have more cash to support a habit?

Then do us a favor, and clear up these "misconceptions" about drug use, and economics. Post some evidence.

As I've said before, by making drugs legal, regular businesses, even individual people could now sell drugs without the threat of punishment. I never said this would solve the addict's dilemma. With drugs being illegal now, the addict runs a greater risk of turning to crime to buy his drugs because of the high price. By making it legal, the price of drugs would drop, because of the creation of legal sellers (which would probably be regulated by government). Therefore, the addict now might not have to resort to anything criminal.

I’m sure just because drugs are made legal to buy or use the dealers aren’t just going to sell them for peanuts.  The drug cartails would still be in business, so really you would solve nothing on that front ( it would be like big oil part 2 ).

The drug cartels would have to drop their prices if more people were involved in selling drugs once they are legal. If there's an influx of any item that was once prohibited, prices automatically drop. This takes away the cartels power, because they no longer hold a monopoly over the trade.

Now, you say that by dumping our war on drugs it could free up huge sums of money that could be better spent on rehab centers and drug education?   If that’s the ideal, it’s foolish to think that by cutting the money spent on the drug war would be enough to pay for the huge increase of users and high crime rates that would soon follow after.

It's not foolish at all considering in 1999 alone, 30 Billion dollars were wasted in the war on drugs. That money could be used in a better way, from free clinics, to rehab centers, to education, anything. Once again, you've provided nothing that says there would be a "huge increase in users" or a higher crime rate.

It’s simply doesn’t add up to enough because you are not considering  Higher crime, higher health insurance  rates( if using our current system)  which leads me to my next question, but I want somebody to explain whose going to be in charge of the selling first.

Explain the higher crime scenario. If drugs become legal, less people go to prison because it's no longer a criminal offense, addicts could now afford what they need because of it's availability. Why are you mixing in health insurance when that is not based on anything related to the drug war? See above for the part on selling.

Thanks Earth.  You just saved me a rant.  Keller's right about one thing, he'll never change his mind on this subject, because the rest of us are just sadly on the wrong side of reality.

[NOS]

The DEA never gave a valid reason for making ecstasy illegal in the first place.  How can you make a natural plant illegal?   

 Mushrooms are non-addictive.

[Sbane]

The story of Ecstacy is sad. It started out as a drug used in therapy, but its pleasurable side effects soon became public knowledge. The drug does have potential for abuse but nothing close to what it is in its current form. The pills these days are cut with meth, coke and all kinds of bullsh**t. That makes it much more addictive than it would be otherwise.

[Earth]

It makes no sense that ecstasy would be cut with a more expensive drug like coke. Drugs are usually cut with very cheap over the counter drugs, or fillers like baking soda to increase the amount.   

[Flying Dog]

I'm not the drug expert but it is interesting to read people's opinions on this issue. I'm fine with it as long as you are doing it in the privacy of your own home, not in a public establishment.

[Sbane]

It makes no sense that ecstasy would be cut with a more expensive drug like coke. Drugs are usually cut with very cheap over the counter drugs, or fillers like baking soda to increase the amount.  

Hmm maybe not coke? I dunno man I don't do it. I am 100% sure it is cut with meth, which is enough for me to not do it.

[RosettaStoned]

It makes no sense that ecstasy would be cut with a more expensive drug like coke. Drugs are usually cut with very cheap over the counter drugs, or fillers like baking soda to increase the amount.  

Hmm maybe not coke? I dunno man I don't do it. I am 100% sure it is cut with meth, which is enough for me to not do it.

Sometimes you can get some that is cut with meth, but not all the time. It is possible to get pure MDMA.

[Redefeatbush04]

It makes no sense that ecstasy would be cut with a more expensive drug like coke. Drugs are usually cut with very cheap over the counter drugs, or fillers like baking soda to increase the amount.  

Hmm maybe not coke? I dunno man I don't do it. I am 100% sure it is cut with meth, which is enough for me to not do it.

Sometimes you can get some that is cut with meth, but not all the time. It is possible to get pure MDMA.

http://www.pillreports.com/

Never done it - likely never will but if I did I would definitely check the purity first.

[MK]

 Secularist  are mostly people who are well educated and will be well off.  They don't care about regular people who may have less education, and be more prone to ill effects of secular lifestyles.  The same ones making the case for drugs are the same ones who advocated  putting children on mind controlling substances. That's worked great, now that we have zombies shooting up the school yards, yet they blame it on too many guns being sold.  They are now basically advocating the same as it relates to the legalization of hard drugs.  The city of San Fransisco is the precursor of what Secularists want the rest of the country to look like.

[Matt Damon™]

How elitist of you, saying that regular people can't handle personal freedom and libertine social laws.

[MK]

How elitist of you, saying that regular people can't handle personal freedom and libertine social laws.

Stop being unrealistic.

[Matt Damon™]

How elitist of you, saying that regular people can't handle personal freedom and libertine social laws.

Stop being unrealistic.

Me being unrealistic? I'm not the one who just posted saying that 'regular people' can't handle social liberalism.