Oregon county decriminalizes heroin, meth, cocaine and shoplifting, among others

Originally posted by Xcathdra
To me it goes back to the question of why we would legalize / un-prohibit something, and not put a mechanism in place to regulate ingredients etc.

Removing any type of government overview in the illicit drug arena seems counter productive. If we want to assist people through treatment, shouldn't the government know what ingredients are being used, in what dosages, etc, to better help the person?

Well with legalization we could obviously attempt to regulate substances like we do alcohol and tobacco and medical drugs.

While this might be helpful what is more important is stopping the "War on Drugs".

Attempting to physically control substances does not work.

It gives power to people willing to be violent.
It is a giant waste of money and resources.
It creates ignorance about drug use, which facilitates abuse and addiction.
It puts non violent people in prison with violent people.

The "War on Drugs" is about making money, it has become an industry.

It does nothing to solve drug related problems.

reply to post by Jezus



Correct, and I have stated the war on drugs is not working. However, legalizing all types of drugs will not solve the problem either. People are still alcoholics, drink and drive, die from over consumption, in addition to the health risks associated with alcohol.

We can use Alcohol and Tobacco as an example of how legalization does not work out either.

Treatment is a must I agree.

Even when you regulate the drugs though, you will still have a black market, as we do now with tobacco and alcohol.

reply to post by Xcathdra




I would be my last dollar that the majority of people would rather legally go to a chemist, docotor whatever and get a pure form of their chosen drug, insted of illegally purchasing and unknown form of that same drug of a street dealer.

Realistically the government, a company could produce all current drugs on the market, for next to nothing, we are talking a couple of dollars. The street dealers could simply not compete with that, as obtaining the products illegally hikes the prices up on everything.

Would it eliminate a black market 100% ? No maybe not, but a vast vast majority of the current killings, related to drug traffacking, and all the money that is going into the hands of these cartels, which is then used to buy more weapons, which bring more killings.

All that money could be going back into education, treatment, rehablitation (to those that wants it)

reply to post by Sacri


The issue you run into is if drugs are legalized, they will be controlled, as alcohol and tobacco are. Say someone does Meth and wants to continue doing it. They would need to go to a doctor and have a justified reason to get a prescription for Meth, with no guarantee a Doctor would give it.

now what?

If they don't meet the requirements, and as we see with the medicinal portion of it and its drawbacks, what will people do? Turn back to the black market. Not to mention that you will have meth cooks who rather enjoy the amount of money they get, not ready to give up that money source in an effort to get pure chemicals.

The medical version of Meth is manufactured completely different than the street version (different ingredients) which will mean a different effect. Possibly one that meth users won't like if it does not give the same high effect.

As I stated before, people want to legalize the prostitution arena in an effort to get health care and oversight. How many prostitutes do you know that want the world to know that's what they do to make money?

As I said, treatment is a must, but I don't think legalizing all drugs is prudent, nor do I think it will solve any issues to the extent people think. We have established that a version of meth can assist with weight loss and other issues. How many people do you know who take meth, take it for the reasons given? If they are that desperate to loose weight, I think finding something other than tractor starter fluid and anhydrous would be a higher priority, a safer priority, and a cheaper priority.

reply to post by Xcathdra




I don't see why if you where to legalize drugs that you would have to go to a doctor to get a prescription.

Tabacco and Alcohol are controlled by selling limits in countries due to age.

Do you know in America Teens find it easier to get their hands on illicit drugs over Alcohol.


It may seem far fetched to imagine walking into a pharmacy supplying I.D and buying 1 gram of coc aine, or a few pills in a bag ready to go for your night. I don't think if you can legally buy alcohol and tabacco everywhere and anywhere that drugs should be any different. They would be extremely cheap, because they cost next to nothing to produce, therefore reducing the need for the black market significantly.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Jezus

 

Correct, and I have stated the war on drugs is not working. However, legalizing all types of drugs will not solve the problem either

Legalizing drugs will not instantly solve drug related problems but it is certainly the first step.

The "War on Drugs" only has ONE positive.

It is a very profitable industry.

It does nothing to help the problems related to drugs.

It facilitates ignorance about drugs.
It creates a market for criminals.
It wastes billions of dollars and resources.

And most importantly we are locking millions of innocent people up with violent criminals.

These issues amplify that problems associated with drug use.

The only benefit of the "War on Drugs" is for those that use it to gain political power and those that profit from the private prison industry.

We could use all this effort to actually fight the problems of abuse and addiction instead of creating an artificially violent war.

reply to post by Sacri


The effects of the drugs we are talking about, mind altering etc, are not going to be sold over the counter with the current laws written the way they are. The CSA (Controlled Substances Act) classifies drugs based on use (medical). Since some the the drugs we are referring to have no, or very limited medical value, it will get tagged as a schedule I or II narcotic, requiring a prescription for possession and use.


Do you honestly believe the Government will legalize / decriminalize drugs to the extent of allowing them with no control or oversight? Hydrocodone is an abused, legal drug that requires a prescription to be in possession of it. Why would people honestly think that Meth, or exctasy, or coc aine, or heroin would be allowed to be sold with no valid reason for it?

That, to me, is where the argument runs off the wagon. People want decriminalization / legalization, while at the same time wanting it in the most broad view possible. IE let companies make it using a controlled environment, then allow them to sell it over the counter.

This is not legalization or decriminalization. This is the Government becoming, yet again, a drug dealer.

As far as locking people up with violent criminals.. This is a tough one to accept because of the perceived view by those who do the drugs, and a view by those who dont. I have seen people get upset because they state drug use does not lead to other crimes or drugs.

Sometimes its hard to see the trees while standing in the middle of the Forest. Just because a person does drugs, and does nothing else, does not mean its the same experience for all others. As I stated before, you cannot be charged for possession of a drug by consumption (exception alcohol and under 21). These people who are in jail for drugs, are there because they got caught with drugs on them, or were committing other crimes while they had drugs on them.

I have interviewed people who broke into residences and business, as well as strong armed robbery, for the sole purpose of stealing something, whether it be cash, or items, to sell in order to get drugs, or pay off a drug debt. It's not like this with everyone, nor is it as you say, with non violent people going to jail with violent criminals.

You cannot make an argument that innocent people are being locked up due to the fact its against the law to be in possession of certain drugs. Until it is changed, they are criminals as well, guilty by either a judge, jury or their own plea.

reply to post by Xcathdra




Why should people need a medical reason to take drugs ?

If someone wants to take an acid trip and discover themselves, or take a few pill at a night club or bash some heroin then they should be allowed to. It is their body after all

People are allowed to go to a nightclub smash a stupid amount of alcohol into their body and inhale over 4000 chemicals into their body with each cigarette. Without so much as an age limitation.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to use drugs on the same limitation.

Even if it was based on a prescription system, it shouldn't be hard to get, I can walk into any doctor surgery here, and within 30 mins walk out with a prescription to just about any type of painkiller/anti-depressent/sleeping pill that I want.


Really if it was to be on a prescription system all you would have to do is walk in say your a user, and get what your after.




As for the people commiting crime to pay for drugs you will never eliminate that. People commit crimes to make profits for all sorts of reasons not just drugs.

However if they where produced in a lab as I have already stated the price would be Significantly Lower than the current street prices. It does not cost a great deal to produce anything. Therefore prices are lower crime goes down. Does it eliminate it all together ? No Crime cannot and will never be Eliminated all together its human nature.


I know off people here in Aus, and I am sure its the same everywhere who get in trouble for possession get sent away to jail, then they come out with a far greater knowledge of not just drugs,but off all sort of criminal activities, along with a criminal record making it harder for them to secure a job, they often just end up in far worse criminal activity then the drugs they where involved in.


The current system is not working, something has to be done.

Legalization, Proper Education not the current bull# propoganda that is blasted across the media, and Rehabilitation for those who need it is the key.

reply to post by Sacri


I am not entirely sure how you get prices would be cheaper since its made in a lab. A lab is not going to use tractor starter fluid, anhydrous, amphetamine etc etc in the manner a drug dealer makes. You are wanting a purer, safer product, which means the current method of making meth will not work.

I've already said my peace about alcohol and cigarettes, so we don't need to keep bringing that up. If people by drugs and do them in their house, there is nothing law enforcement can do about it, whether they are breaking the law or not, due to requirements needed to get inside the house.

The moment you go into public, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the game changes because you have no expectation of privacy in public. Drive a car and illegal drugs fall into the same category as drunk driving.

As far as getting a prescription, yes people can go lie about why they need a drug, which goes back to the start of the argument. Why legalize / decriminalize if the sole purpose is to do the drugs for doing sake, and not medical? Both cigarettes and alcohol are under strict guidelines about manufacturing, packaging, content, inspection by government agencies etc etc.

If these 2 categories, since people draw a parallel between these and other drugs, have oversight from the Government, then again why would people think the drugs that are illegal now would not have the same if not more oversight?

Its not against the law to have illegal drugs in your system unless you are driving or endanger the welfare of another person. Why legalize it then, when its already there with no government oversight?

reply to post by Xcathdra



A gram of pure coc aine can be brought in South America for as little as $6. Fast forward to America, Europe,or Australia and the price is anywhere to 400% more.


Ecstasy can be made for as little as $1 a pill, once again fast forward to the street and your paying 15-40 times that amount.

I'm pretty certain that in a lab they could be produced for even cheaper seeing as the drug dealers/makers have to obtain said chemicals illegeally.


Your so bogged down on Meth, It's the only drug you refer to there are more drugs out their than that.


I know what your opinion on tabacco is, and that's fine, however I am showing you that the current system regarding alcohol and tabacco seems to work fine. A system regarding the sale of drugs would work just the same.




Why legalize it?? Because the current system is failing everywhere, To take the money out of the hands of the cartels, to stop the hundreds of daily killings that are a direct result of the fight for control of the drug trade, to keep people out of jail that don't deserve to be there, to reduce to spread of disease such as hiv and Hep, to reduce the OD rate dude to people not knowing what they are taking, to help the people that want helping by providing proper rehabilitation, to save billions and billions of wasted dollars that could better be spent elsewhere, and because its MY body if a person want to do drugs that's THEIR choice not the governments, not anyone else's but theres.

reply to post by Sacri


I choose Meth because I am not a fan of all illegal drugs being legal. Pot sure... Meth, considering the ways its made and what it does to the body, no thanks. PCP, no thanks. Heroin, no thanks.

And gasoline in the middle east in certain countries is free or costs 20 cents a liter. Supply and demand in addition to proximity. Even with our own sources of oil, along with our own refining, its up to 2.50-4.00 a gallon depending on where you are at in the US.

Companies are generally in business to make money, and creating a legal market for some of these drugs will not lower the cost of them. In actuality, because of the potential high demand for "refined", pure meth, or coc aine, pot, etc the prices will be high to make a profit. With the number of people who are "hooked" on drugs, the cost won't mean anything since they will do what it takes to get their supply.

While I agree the war on drugs is not working, and believe we should do treatment before prison, I think some of the people on the legalize side of the fence are not seeing how this will play out in the long run. You will get your drug, but oversight placed by the Feds will not solve the problem.

I understand the argument that is being made, but the expectation that the government will just allow it to be made and sold over the counter is naive at best. U?se history as an example.. At one time you could by heroin over the counter, and could get a dose of coc aine in your coca cola, and the government eventually said no.

Why would we think they would go back on that? I am not saying its impossible, but I don't see it happening in the manner people are hoping, and the arguments ive seen supporting that view are based on your own experience in terms of what the affects are. Just like normal prescription meds, it affects people differently. Unlike prescription meds, they serve no valid medical purpose aside from extreme last resorts using a variation of a limited number of street drugs.

The other argument I noticed is people want it decriminalized / legalized in order to do it more often at a cheaper price, with absolutely no action taken on treatment, unless its voluntary and the person doing the drugs initiates it.

To me it just appears that people argue to legalize for no other reason than to get their high. Even your own comments, along with a few others, argued that people should not need a medical reason to do drugs. A fair point from your side of the argument, but the next question then becomes, why make the argument for legalization / decriminalization, pushing treatment over incarceration, if you have no intentions of stopping yourself from taking the drug.

The point behind decriminalization / legalization in Portugal was to get these people help to get them off the drugs. The sole push was to eradicate the problem through treatment, instead of incarceration. They did not legalize / decriminalize to allow people to continue to do drugs in a safer manner, and from the research ive done I am not finding any place where their Government has oversight over how the drugs are made. Also if you get caught with drugs, they are confiscated and not returned.


Portugal - 5 years after decriminalization

Under the Portuguese plan, penalties for people caught dealing and trafficking drugs are unchanged; dealers are still jailed and subjected to fines depending on the crime. But people caught using or possessing small amounts—defined as the amount needed for 10 days of personal use—are brought before what's known as a "Dissuasion Commission," an administrative body created by the 2001 law.

People seem to be under the impression that Portugal allows there drug users to do it freely, and assume Portugal's Government has oversight, which they don't. Their goal is to stop the use of drugs, and not support the use of them. They are geared to treatment over incarceration, yet people here cite their law as being something its not to further their argument for total legalization / decriminalization with absolutely no intention of getting help to get off the drugs.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Sacri

 

I choose Meth because I am not a fan of all illegal drugs being legal. Pot sure... Meth, considering the ways its made and what it does to the body, no thanks. PCP, no thanks. Heroin, no thanks.

You don't know how methamphetamine will be made if it were made legal. You just know how the junky scum make it now.

Left alone, the free market would see it produced in clean factories by Union workers, guarded by ex-cops and with All American ingredients. It would be much cheaper to buy finished product from the major manufacturers than to attempt to make it oneself.

reply to post by Exuberant1


Well we do know how it would be made with legal ingredients. Scroll back a few posts and you will see a link that goes to a variation of meth that is used as a medical last resort for certain issues.

Left alone with no government oversight, imo, will not produce it cleanly. Companies will use cheaper products and ramp up prices to make a profit.

If the major pharmaceutical companies in the US manufactured these drugs, why do you think it would be cheaper to buy them? We have established evidence that these companies charge Americans a higher price to recoup the R and D cost, while making the drugs cheaper to other countries for purchase because they do not include an R and D cost bump.

Desoxyn - A Schedule II Narcotic

Which supports my theory that it would be a prescription only drug given to those who meet certain qualifications.

As a side note someone pointed this out to me. Portugal did not legalize their drugs, just decriminalized them. If you don't do the treatment, you can still get a criminal charge and fined.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I realize that you have willingly acknowledged the problems that exist with the "war on drugs", and your call to treatment is an admirable one, even if you still advocate imprisoning drug users if they fail to gain treatment.

I understand your very real concerns regarding the use of "meth" and heroin, and PCP. Here is what I don't understand; while the use of certain drugs does have an effect on many of the users that is demonstrably horrifying, and tragic, the tragedy lies in the damage they do to themselves.

The argument that this drug use leads to violence committed on others, ignores the fact that sober people commit violence on others as well. Should we prohibit sobriety as well? Of course not! No reasonable person will argue that sobriety leads to crime. What some reasonable people may do, is attempt to find the source of the criminal behavior of sober people, which could be religious zealotry, racism, political beliefs, poverty, or a history of abuse by others.

Of those possible sources, the only demonstrable criminal behavior is abuse by other, and possibly racism depending upon the definition of that term. Religious, and political beliefs, as well as socioeconomic backgrounds are not criminal. Should they be criminalized because they lead to crime?

What truly baffles me, in regards to your advocacy of prohibition legislation, is that as a law enforcement officer, you have first hand knowledge of the justice system and its problems. Consider these statistics from Drugs and the Justice System: Conviction and Sentencing Trends, that offers up statistics from the year 2002 regarding felony convictions and sentences in state courts relative to the number of arrests.

Out of 100 arrests per felony, murder yielded 70 convictions, that lead to 64 prison sentences. Robbery yielded 47 convictions, and 34 sentences, aggravated assault yielded 23 convictions and 10 sentences, burglary 50 convictions and 23 sentences, motor vehicle theft 18 convictions and 7 sentences, and finally drug trafficking which yielded 90 convictions, and 34 prison sentences.

www.libraryindex.com...

At least murder is still taken seriously in the Justice system, and it by far yielded the most sentences per conviction, but robbery, a crime that produces a quantifiable victim, tied for second in terms of the most sentences per conviction with drug trafficking, where a quantifiable victim is imaginary, and out of 100 arrested for both charges, prosecutors managed to yield 80 convictions for drug trafficking as opposed to the 47 of 100 for robbery. That means in terms of robbery, prosecutors who represent the people failed more times than they succeeded in securing a conviction for robbery, but when it came to drug trafficking prosecutors were able to secure a stunning 80% victory rate, which was even higher than that of murder, which was only 70%.

Further, burglary only yielded a 50% conviction rate, but sentencing of burglars was only 23%. 23 out of 100 people arrested for burglary wound up in prison, as opposed to the 34 out of 100 people put in prison for drug trafficking. Aggravated assault demonstrates an even more dismal record for state prosecutors with a 23% conviction rate, and a 10% sentencing rate, and motor vehicle theft is even worse with an 18% conviction rate, and a 7% sentencing rate.

Either prosecutors are far more competent at "protecting" the people from drug trafficking than they are at administering justice when it comes to burglary, aggravated assault, robbery, and motor vehicle theft, or something else is at play. No matter how you slice it, these statistics do not bode well for a justice system mandated with establishing justice.

My guess is that, for every hundred arrests you make regarding burglary, you know full well what the dismal rate of conviction and sentencing is, and an even more dismal rate for aggravated assault and motor vehicle thefts, especially when compared with the conviction rates and sentencing for drug trafficking.

You know full well that drug trafficking conviction rates are more successful than those of demonstrable crimes that produce very real victims. The argument that trafficking drugs produces victims is fairly laughable in light of these statistics, where victims of burglary, grand theft auto, and aggravated assault, are treated as less important by the justice system, or at the very least the justice system is far less competent in meting out justice regarding these crimes, than they are in convicting and sentencing drug traffickers.

People can be assured that for every 100 people you arrest for stealing an automobile, less than 10% will actually be put in prison for that crime, and for every 100 people you arrest for aggravated assault, no more than 10% will be put in prison for that crime, and as far as convicting these criminals the people can be assured that the success of convictions rates is far, far, less than that of drug trafficking.

Combine that reality with the fact that much of your time is tied up in arresting drug traffickers and users, and it is a fair question to ask how much time is left to investigate and arrest the crimes of robbery, burglary, aggravated assault, and grand theft auto?

Hell, shoplifting, a demonstrable crime, that produces real victims, is one of the subjects of this thread that has been decriminalized in Oregon due to budge constraints. How much of a law enforcements budget is spent on this so called "war on drugs" that does little to help the people find justice when it comes to robbery, burglary, aggravated assault, and grand theft auto?

I would argue that the justice system should clean up its own back yard before intruding in the back yard of others and tsk tsk tsking away over the use of drugs.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Some flaws in the stats:

I don't think they take into account plea bargains, people being charged at one level, only to have it reduced to a lesser offense by the jury, mistrials that result in a lesser charge, or Alford pleas, or guilty please.

The other point is investigation of a drug crime is not generally at the top of law enforcement as a priority crime. Most of the time, while investigating someone for another offense (Traffic Stop, Burglary, Robbery, theft) do we come across a drug posession charge.

A lot of times people will be charged with multiple offenses. Once the PA gets the case its reviewed and usually a plea deal is put forward IE - Plead guilty to XXXX and we will drop the other charges with a sentencing recommendation. The other issue I have with the stats is it does not take into account multiple crimes. Generally speaking, when Law Enforcement submits multiple charges to the PA, the highest possible offense is the one listed for UCR reporting purposes, whether the person is charged with that, or convicted of it, is not taken into account.

Damage done to ones body by taking drugs runs onto the argument of control over ones body. I never understood the argument behind suicide being illegal, but it is in most states. The law attempts to prevent a person from harming themselves. Usually a suicidal person who makes an attempt but does not succeed is not imprisoned, but rather check for mental illness with an attempt made to treat the psychological issue. People can however be placed into a psychiatric institution if there is no hope of improvement, and the person remains a danger to themselves.

Trafficking charges - This is easier to prove in court because of the fact the person arrested is in possession of the drugs when confronted by law enforcement (traffic stop, raid, etc). Unless a person is caught on camera or caught in the act of a burglary, leaves fingerprints, a wallet, etc its more difficult to prove the person was there, and even more difficult to find items that were taken to link a person to that type of crime.

The comment about decriminalizing shop lifting is not accurate. The PA's office talked about in this thread says it will not prosecute certain crimes due to budget, time etc. They cannot declare that if someone walks into walmart and steals something, that it is legal. In that instance, the Government is not the injured party, the business is, and the business is the sole entity that can decide if they want to press charges or not.

Other point to keep in mind. I have worked theft cases (Gas, items etc) and the majority of the time the people wronged do not press charges if the suspect pay for the items taken. Most of the stats listed deal with crimes where the state is not the injured party. If someone attacks you, you can decline to file charges. Since there is no longer a victim, the crime cannot be prosecuted.

The only exception I have ever seen to this setup is Domestic Violence. Most states have laws that state if the victim does not press charges, the state can continue the prosecution on their own. This was put in place due to the level of intimidation battered spouse (male / female) get by the person who beat them to drop the charges.

The reason the justice system is jacked up is because its meant to be. The system we brought from England is an adversarial system, with the State having to make their case. Each case is unique with differing sets of circumstances that are taken into account.

Also, the other thing the stats are not taking into account are previous convictions. If someone is arrested for burglary and assault and its their first offense, its possible they can get a suspended imposition, or suspended execution of sentence - IE if they don't have any more adverse contact with authorities for say a year, then they don't go to jail and it gives them a better chance of straightening out the part of their life that went wrong.

If during this time, the are stopped by the police for a traffic stop, and there is a marijuana joint in plain view (or any other drug) for that matter, they are arrested / cited for it. Because they broke probation, its possible for them to have the original punishment enforced off the prosecution of the drug charge.

I would like to see treatment before incarceration, and a style like Portugal's looks promising. However, decriminalizing drugs just to decriminalize with no follow up doesnt accomplish anything, and would become jsut as useless as a war on drugs.

reply to post by Xcathdra


With all due respect, you are making excuses for why the stats read as they do. In regards to "plea bargaining", presumably this bargaining of justice is in place because of a beleaguered justice system.

A "plea bargain" is a deal offered by a prosecutor as an incentive for a defendant to plead guilty. If every case in the justice system went to trial, the courts would be so overloaded that they would effectively be shut down. Plea bargaining allows the prosecutor to obtain guilty pleas in cases that might otherwise go to trial.

www.expertlaw.com...

Conversely, if prohibition legislation didn't exist, the possibility of overwhelming the justice system is less likely.

If using drugs leads to crime, then deal with the crime when it happens, instead of overwhelming the justice system with an invented crime just to create an illusion that the justice system is "preventing" crime.

I am with you on the confusion nature of suicide. I am not so sure why the state believes they have a responsibility of protecting people from harming themselves, especially when that "protection" comes at the expense of the public. However, as you have stated, generally people who attempt suicide are not prosecuted for a crime and instead are placed in psychiatric care. At the very least, if such a policy were used in dealing with drug addiction, this would relieve a tremendous amount of overwhelming work for the justice system, leaving them more time to deal with real crimes.

Even further, by taking a policy of "protecting" a person who is demonstrably harming themselves, through treatment, there is no need to criminalize the sale of narcotics, just deal with the addicts as a consequence.

While such a policy is still reflective of a nanny state, at least it less intrusive than the nanny state we have today.

Personally, I think the so called "war on drugs" exists to facilitate the expansion of government, not protect the people. Even if the motive is protection, the effect has been a largely expanded state. This is a problem, in terms of personal freedom, and economics, as is demonstrated by the numerous budget crisis of governments in the United States, and the fact that the U.S. imprisons more people than any other industrialized nation in the world.

reply to post by Xcathdra




So Pot which grows naturally on this planet is ok.... yet Heroin which also grows naturally on this planet is not ok??

Second line

reply to post by Sacri


Opium plants growing in backyards! It would be madness!

Imagine what the world would come to if those who required immediate pain relief could go into their yard and collect latex with which to stop their pain. Without a bureaucracy and a large amount of suffering in between the injury and treatment, there would be CHAOS.

Not to mention all those other things opium can be used to treat - that would just make it worse. . .

. . .People would not spend so much of their food and rent money at the doctor when in pain and stuff so the economy would tank.

reply to post by Exuberant1




LOL I think your taking it Way to far ! Studies/Research has shown the majority of people that use Drugs is minute, far from what the media would have you believe, and even when asked if drugs where legalized would that change their opinion on use and most said no.

I'm trying to find the source, but I remember reading somewhere that over 75% of people who try a drug for the first time, don't ever touch it again.


You make it sound that every tom dick and harry would pull the fruit and vegetables plants out of their garden and start growing Opium, it wouldn't happen.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Personally, I think the so called "war on drugs" exists to facilitate the expansion of government, not protect the people.

This isn't just an opinion, it is an observable fact.

Research the first Drug Czar - Anslinger

When you look at history there are only two logical explanations for the "War on Drugs"

1. Ignorance
- Ignorance about drugs
- Ignorance about the effects of the war

Both facilitated by propaganda.

2. Greed
- Greed for political power
- Greed for profits from the private prison industry

---

Again, no one is denying that drugs are related to problems for society.

But it has become VERY clear that the "War on Drugs" does nothing but amplify these problems.

Addiction and abuse CAN NOT be fought with physical force.