So the author of this site is against prohibition. I'm afraid he'll have to do better than cite some accidental, tragic and utterly senseless deaths to support his opinion. I'd find this more convincing if this person could actually post a percentage of some sort in which tragic mistakes occur in drug raids.

There's thirty some odd tragic accidents listed here, and some of them are truly apalling in the magnitude of stupidity shown. (I'm still trying to figure what startled a police officer so badly upon entering a bedroom of an elderly, bed-ridden pneumonia patient, that his gun accidentally went off and killed her. Every profession has its idiots. In law enforcement, they simply have idiots with guns.) But this number of mishaps is contrasted with how many successful drug raids? The author of the site conveniently leaves out that number. And what is the criteria for success? No innocent bystanders killed? If that were the case, some of the deaths cited on the website could be disqualified as unsuccessful. Is it a successful drug raid if no one gets killed and all the guilty parties are arrested? That's a little unrealistic, and callous as it sounds, I'm shedding no tears for a crack dealer who takes a bullet or several dozen.

Moreover, a certain number of unsuccessful drug raids is no argument against prohibition. Following that logic, we now should do away with the medical profession, since embarassing mistakes occur on a daily basis in that particular field, and innocent people die who should have lived. It's tragic, it's cruel, it's unfair, and it happens. We don't throw out medicine; we try to make it better so fewer mistakes occur.

(Why is it that these strange soapboxes keep appearing under my desk and chair every time I post here? My back yard is getting so cluttered with them.)

I'll argue against prohibition -- and not just because people are senselessly killed, but because the government has no right to tell us what we can't and can't put in our bodies. Prohibition didn't work way back when and it's not working now.

You comments now have me trying now to figure out where you stand on other issues, Amy. Of course, I can only speculate as to what greater accessibility to cocaine, LSD, angel dust, etc. would mean to our society, but I'm guessing greater use. A drugged out society will undoubtedly increase the welfare rolls, to say nothing of health care costs. Of course, you have may have your own ideas regarding these things as well. What about the issue of public safety? I'm not too comfortable with rampant use of hallucinogens. Your right to put chemicals in your body should at least stop where my personal safety begins.

You've obviously thought about these things, so I'd like to hear where you stand on the other issues involved -- or even WHAT issues you think will be involved -- should prohibition be lifted.

"A drugged out society will undoubtedly increase the welfare rolls, to say nothing of health care costs."

I definitely agree with you about the impact of drug use on health care costs. A lot of people end up in emergency rooms because of illicit drug use. If they're uninsured, we pay for them out of state and local taxes. With 6% unemployment, we don't have a lot of mad money to spend on tweakers and their drug-induced psychotic episodes.

You're wrong about the welfare rolls, though. Since 1996, states have been able to test welfare recipients for drugs and cut off those who test positive. Also, states also arenít allowed under federal law to provide cash assistance or food stamps to anyone convicted of a drug-related felony.

I'm for personal autonomy, meaning legalization and regulation of all drugs. People will use and abuse (which is different from using) them whether or not they are legal, and quite frankly, there are many high-functioning drug users. (See Jacob Sullum's piece -- http://www.reason.com/0306/fe.js.h.shtml) Because we've demonized drugs doesn't make them different from alcohol. Some people will be drunks, but most people won't. The fact that alcohol is legal doesn't change that. Heroin is readily available not too far from where I live. Does that mean I've ever used it? No. Do I smoke pot, also available close to me? No. Doesn't appeal to me. (Hi, I can get really sleepy and get the munchies without smoking anything, thank you.) The notion that legalization would turn America into one big crack house/opium den is ludicrous. What it would do is erase a large portion of the crime in our society. Take Holland as empirical evidence that legalization of pot doesn't turn all the children into lazy potheads. Lena would know more about the actual stats, but from what I've read, a lot of kids look disparagingly at all the fogies running around in a drug haze. It's like the backlash I recently read about in the NY Times, I believe -- kids rebelling against their hippie parents by becoming Republicans. Finally, LSD and other hallucenogens would be of great benefit when used in therapy; especially on repressed patients. I was a friend of Os Janiger (he's dead now) who used LSD in therapy with Cary Grant and others. People can't even consider the therapeutic effects and other benefits of drugs because we've so demonized them (falsely, in many cases) that there's no possibility of honest discussion. For anybody who wants a frank and non-fear based read on the benefits of psilocybin mushrooms and other hallucenogens, check out Terrence McKenna's book, "Archaic Revival." In short, I'm for personal choice, not big nannyism.

Moreover, if drugs are legalized, they can be taxed (as cigarettes should be) to pay for the full estimate of health care costs, if any, to the buyer. I understand that cigarettes cost taxpayers $40 a pack in health-care costs -- again, this figure is just something I read; Lena would know better -- and I think it's fine if you smoke (as long as I'm not down-wind of you) as long as you pick up the cost. The same goes for riding a motorcycle without a helmet and other personal choices. Regarding the latter, if you want to ride without a helmet, fine with me -- I just think you should be required to carry special health insurance that will pick up the cost (instead of passing it on to taxpayers) if your brains become huevos rancheros on the roadside.

Ha! I was betting you'd thought this thing through, Amy, and I was right. Let me check out the book first, and I'll get back to you. Of course, I better make sure I return in on time. I wouldn't want John Ashcroft banging on my door, demanding to know why I'm borrowing drug literature from the library. I hope those bulldogs in granny shoes destroy my records, anyway.

Actually, check out Sullum's piece -- it's on Reason.com, and I'd be willing to bet they, if anyone, don't suck info from you when you go onto their site and pour over it later!

I've been thinking about the legalization of certain hard drugs, and I think I did spot a couple of flaws in the arguments presented on this blog entry.

Alcohol can be used in moderation, for one thing. Hard drugs can't. You take so much as one hit of crack, for instance, and you're going to be absolutely, totally, completely, consummately, out of it. There's no such thing as using crack in moderation. You are there, or you are not. You can't get a "slight buzz" going with different levels of it. It's more like an off/on switch. Hence there is no safe limit, no legal levels that make it safe for you to drive.

Makes me wonder how this is going to be handled should it's use be legalized. Will bars now feature crack rooms, allowing a person to get stoned and not be released from the room till they know what they're doing? Will they be inspected, frisked, to make sure that they are only using the stuff from the establishment and not bringing their own? And will they be checked before they leave so as to be sure they're not smuggling "rocks" with them when they get out?

And of course, someone's got to be there to make sure that they know that crack is supposed to be smoked, not snorted. (Sorry, Amy. I couldn't resist! You may be a long time in living that one down.)

"Alcohol can be used in moderation, for one thing. Hard drugs can't [...] There's no such thing as using crack in moderation."

Is anyone smoking crack anymore, anyway? (besides Amy, that is). Crystal is the new crack (just as terrorist-alert orange is the new black). Now I know that anecdotes aren't evidence, but I've got a friend who smokes crystal almost every day -- in moderation, just to get that "slight buzz" you say isn't possible. This guy is holding down a very toney consulting job that pays him $80K/year, and he gets laid way more than my sober ass does. I'm outraged!

"there is no safe limit, no legal levels that make it safe for you to drive."

Most advocates of the "harm reduction" approach to drug use would completely with you that it's bad to drive when you're high. That's why they emphasize the importance of making plans around drug use. A lot of alcoholics, junkies, and fat-ass cookie monsters get themselves into trouble because they don't think about how to fit their habits into their lives. I'm a wanton slut who's addicted to cock, not crack, and the reason I don't have HIV is because I plan for my pleasure -- ie, I keep condoms in my purse. I'm my own designated driver.

I believe peoplehave the right to drink whenever they want as long as they don't drive or do anything else that can cause other people to get hurt in the process. Alcohol is not the enemy and the gov already tried to ban it remember? it didn't work... Anywho you got to try and educate people about the dangers and make it socially unacceptable to drink at the wrong times. Visit my site at www.saveabuddy.com I got keychain breathalyzers for $3.99... You can use them to test your friends and make sure they aren't about to do the big DUI.

Phil