But Amy, pot is a gateway drug. Or is it that it can grow in your backyard unlike coffee beans and therefore the government cant make any money off of it??

Funny isnt it? You can smoke a product designed to kill you, but not one that wont?

And truthfully which is the leading cause of controlled substance related accidents and fatalities?

Smoking dried canibis leaves or drinking concentrated fungus piss?

One time I tried smoking tea leaves. I figured, "It's a plant so it'll do something." Hah!!

This November my fellow Massholes and I will be faced with the following ballot initiatives:
1) ban greyhound racing
2) decriminalize small amts. of marijuana
3) repeal the state's income tax

I'm all for #1 because they don't treat the greyhounds very nicely. I'll have to see what #3 is all about - I hate, hate, hate taxes but getting rid of taxes seems dubious as it'll probably mean more potholes or higher taxes elsewhere.

But decriminalizing pot...now this might be a step in the right direction.

As Criddo would say, "Werd."

P.S I was 15 when the tea leaves happened. And I wasn't alone. My friends did dare me...

As with many such claims, there seems to be some disagreement from outside sources. Slate magazine: http://www.slate.com/?id=2074151, as far back as 2002.

Of course, almost any bureaucracy (which includes advocacy groups, I should guess) tends to make gloomy, dire predictions, even as they claim to make headway. After all, they have to keep justifying their existance and need for more funding.

Legalize them all. Tax them. And hold users accountable for their actions. I bet we could fund the war on Iraq by getting rid of the war on drugs. It's not just the DEA. There's also all the policing dollars, the jail dollars, etc etc. And people still use them.

"After all, they have to keep justifying their existance and need for more funding."

Yeah, ever notice how we are involved in all these "wars" (War on Drugs, War on Poverty, etc.) that we can never possibly win? Are all people everywhere going to stop experimenting with and using drugs? There will always be someone, somewhere, using drugs. How convenient if you work for the DEA - you will always have a job. Same thing for poverty - no matter how the standard of living improves for everyone in the USA, *someone* will always be in "poverty." Well looky, THOSE people will always have jobs, too!

Illegal drug use is the #1 issue here in Vancouver, BC where I live. A major swath of the city has been infested with lost souls who are high on one or more of: Heroin, crack cocaine, crystal meth, and a variety of others.

The consumption of these drugs costs money. It is estimated that 80% of all property crime (cars, homes, businesses) is directly related to drug use. With a 10:1 ratio of selling stolen property, $10,000 worth of stuff is stolen for every $1,000 worth of drugs. Not only has this driven insurance rates sky high, but it has also resulted in disruptions of phone and electrical service, as the drug addicts have ripped out wires in search of copper to sell for scrap metal.

Metro Vancouver was recently named as the organized crime capital of the world, with literally tens of thousands of homes being converted over to drug growing dens or drug manufacturing labs. Just the other week, an apartment complex in the supposedly good neighbourhood where I live (Kitsilano) had to be evacuated for a few days because some nutbar decided to turn his apartment into a crystal meth manufacturing facility. He killed himself with the fumes and potentially risked the lives of everyone else in the building from exposure to the fumes or an explosion.

From time to time we have gangstas (generally Asian or South Asian) roaming around the streets, firing automatic weapons into the cars & homes of their enemies. However, their bullets don't suddenly fall to the ground before hitting innocent people.

"BC Bud" is the high potency marijuana that others have mentioned. It is primarily shipped down to the U.S. in exchange for guns, cocaine, and heroin coming up here. Those items coming to us are not blessings on our society in any way, shape, or form.

The police have pretty much given up on arresting drug addicts and often drug dealers because our over lenient judges have continuously released these people back onto the street before the arresting cop starts his next shift.

Over in Switzerland, where they've had a pretty open "live and let live" policy about drug use, even they are rethinking it because of what it is doing to their society.

I don't precisely know what the ultimate solution to this Modern Day Plague is but its presence in my community has turned me from a pure Libertarian into a Pragmatic Libertarian.

One proposed policy I'm in growing support of is to forcibly incarcerate drug addicts into treatment facilities far away from the source of their misery. Many recovered drug addicts agree with this approach, saying that until a person hits rock bottom, they'll never go willingly. But it often takes many years of misery to reach that point. By then, many are dead.

Of course, there are significant forces against such a policy. They speak of "human rights" but I strongly believe what's really at the heart of their objections is that many, many people are now gainfully employed by the Poverty Industry. These are the folks who are supposedly employed to help these lost souls. They're very adept at applying band-aids but actually curing the drug addictions doesn't seem to be of much interest to them.

Am I cynical? I prefer the term "realistic and saddened observer"!

Pot is a gateway drug. Maybe not in all cases but a good many. Mine included. I don't believe I would have jumped straight into crystal meth at 17 if I wasn't already part of the drug culture and desensitized to the dangers by smoking pot for about the past four years at the time. Alot of freinds went through the same thing when we were growing up in gangland So. Ca. People who want to "Legalise it all" no matter how tounge in cheek seem to come from two subcultures, those who are current users who want to legalise it for obvious reasons, and those who have never been regular users, who misguidedly believe it is going to lower their taxes. There is another group of us that have enough experience with the drug culture who believe that to be the worst idea imaginable. Those of us who were once regular users and aren't anymore. There are dangers some mentioned above that someone insulated from that culture could not even imagine. Reading about them in the newspaper can not ever give you proper perspective on how bad it can be. The DEA and other agencies that are fighting this "war" may not be having the kind of success that any of us want but we can't just throw in the towell. Unless we want to see how bad it can realy get. Anyone read about the decapitated bodies in Mexico? I've been clean for fourteen years and by some coincidence that is how long I can call myself a productive member of society. All it took was a family who helped when there wasn't much to see in me that I would call redeemable a move across country and discipline that I never would have guessed that I had. Don't miss that way of life, don't wish it on anyone else and don't want to make it easier for them to fall into it. By the way although I am not going to defend any drunk driver involved in a fatal accident, is it possible that there are more of those than drug related driving fatalities because alcohol is more easily obtained?

Two points, PVM:

1) All the drugs you did were illegal at the time you did them, and

2) The dead bodies are a result of the drug war itself. You don't see dead bodies as a result of people fighting over bottles of wine, do you? No, not now, but you did at the time alcohol prohibition existed.

I think if drugs were decriminalized, there would be no change in the number of people using them. (This is because of how ineffective the drug war is.) Where/who are these legions of people who are waiting for drugs to be legalized before they try them? People would buy their weed in headshops, just like people buy liquor in a liquor store. No guns would have to be exchanged.

Speaking of "wars" against abstractions, I'm at least gratified that the Bush administration used the title "No Child Left Behind" instead of "War on Ignorance." But then, considering their stand on Creationism, they're apparently in favor of ignorance.

Thanks, Pirate Jo. Perfect. Because some lack self-control doesn't mean the rest of us should be penalized.

I have a number of friends who smoke pot, including those who grew up in California in the drug culture. These friends smoke pot like other people drink wine, as an occasional thing to relax and have some fun. If they aren't toking and driving, or costing the rest of us in rehab dollars, why should we care?

Pirate Joe, both points true or at least partialy valid.
But I guess I didn't express my reasoning well enough.
The fact the drugs I did were illegal didn't effect the quality of life that I led. I would not have been able to have held down a good job during my years of chemical abuse whether they were legal or not. Thus I still would have been reduced to what I was. 85% of the homeless in LA county have some kind of dependancy problem, drugs or alcohol. They aren't homeless because the drugs are illegal. Some are homeless because having a drug dependancy makes it nearly impossible to be productive in any real sense of the word. I am not suggesting that is the only reason they are homeless, just a contributing factor for some.

As for the people waiting for them to legalise so they can use. They are probably in gradeschool now having no idea that this debate is happening. When I was in highschool there were many people who would not touch a joint because it was illegal, but would crack a beer in a heartbeat. Now what I don't want is the next generation thinking getting high it is okay because it is legal.

The killings in Mexico can be atributed to the drug war but I believe that would be streching the explanation or possibly narrowing it. The laws in Mexico are so ineffective they might as well be non existant. These killings were over a turf war between two rival "drug lords" lawlessnes in the region seems to be more a factor than the fact that the DEA doesn't want someone smuggling coke over the border.

Sorry for replieing out of order but just the way the answers lined up in my head.

If drugs are decriminalized, more people will use them - or will use more of them - than is the case at the moment. That's almost certain - make things more available, and more people will try them out. That having been said, every employer that's offered me a job in the last decade has demanded a drug test, and that's unlikely to change, because employers don't want to hire druggies that they think may be unproductive and/or dangerous. So I doubt most of America will end up high all of the time if drugs are decriminalized. But there are tradeoffs.

My main objection to the drug war is that it has a corrupting effect on the justice system as a whole. The proceeds from drug raids are very, very tempting. Most of the "redefinitions" of the Fourth Amendment that have been presented to the Supreme Court during the last few decades have stemmed from the needs of drug enforcers, one way or another. Anti-drug police teams appear to feel free to shoot first and ask questions (such as, "Wait, are we sure that this home of an elderly woman was the place we meant to go?") later. Basically, you're talking about laws designed to prevent people from doing things that can (mostly) be done in the privacy of their own homes and typically only affect themselves. (Yes, yes, getting high makes you a danger behind the wheel - but so does drinking too much, and we've managed to get a much tighter control on that despite the fact that alcohol is legal.) The only way to stop that in a significant way is to institute a police state. I'm not in favor of a police state, to say the least. I also resent my tax dollars going to prosecute users of medical marijuana and other people who are nonviolent and no danger to me and mine. Decriminalize the stuff now. It doesn't have to be sold in Walgreen's, but make it the equivalent of jaywalking.

(Note: I've never used illegal drugs and have no plans to do so. I'm weird enough as it is and I hate being dependent on anything. My views are only self-serving in the sense that I prefer that my tax dollars be used to fund scientific research, provide job training for teenage moms, build fighter jets, pave roads, fight fires, imprison murderers and child rapists, etc., rather than to lock up nonviolent people who like getting high.)

"I have a number of friends who smoke pot, including those who grew up in California in the drug culture. These friends smoke pot like other people drink wine, as an occasional thing to relax and have some fun. If they aren't toking and driving, or costing the rest of us in rehab dollars, why should we care?"

Actually so do I have friends who do also. The laws are not put in place to punnish people like your friends but to protect us and them from the people who don't have the self control to not go the next step.

Make them legal give the next generation that leg up to screw themselves up. You probably have had a underage kid ask you to buy them some beer when you walk into a store. What will that 15 year old be asking the next generation to pick up for him? Kids are not mature enough to make a good judgement call on that. I hope that we keep attempting to make it harder for them to get dope.

I see the Gateway issue as more of a "making a connection to the dealer" thing than a one drug leads to another.

If I was at a party and the beer ran out, I would drink anything. If someone goes to a dealer and he doesn't have any pot, they will likely try something else. That possibility goes away if pot is legally sold at a government regulated store.

Steamer,
I can only speak from personal experience and from what I know of what happened to people I know. But in our case you are wrong. We smoked pot first although pretty much anything was available where I grew up. Till we got bored with it and stepped up. Pot was still available but we were looking for something better, stronger, newer.

"When I was in highschool there were many people who would not touch a joint because it was illegal, but would crack a beer in a heartbeat."

Maybe I'm misunderstanding ... they wouldn't touch a joint because it was illegal, but they would crack a beer even though beer is illegal for high schoolers? Obviously the law didn't make much difference to them. It sounds more like they didn't touch a joint because it didn't appeal to them, but they drank beer because it did.

Your arguments seem to amount to 'We should keep this stuff illegal because it's really, really bad for people and it destroys their lives.' But people do plenty of things that are really, really bad for them. That simply isn't a reason to lock them up in a free society. I'd rather have a cocaine habit than be a 600-lb, morbidly obese person who hasn't left the house in three years because I can't fit out the door. Yet those people do exist, and they can't hold down jobs either, but we don't throw them in jail as criminals or make the food they eat illegal.

You say, "The laws are not put in place to punnish people like your friends but to protect us and them from the people who don't have the self control to not go the next step."

Yet people like Amy's friends ARE being punished, even if, as you say, that's not what the laws were put in place to do. And those who "don't have the self control to not go to the next step" don't change their behavior in the slightest. I'm sorry, but the truth is we are just stuck with these people, like it or not. All the laws in the world aren't going to change a thing. Please take note of Marion's comments above. Read some of Radley Balko's reporting over at reason.com. The abuse of power as a result of these laws is very real, and very significant. Harmless, occasional users are having their lives ruined, as are many other innocent people.

Yes, your point is well made - drugs are bad for us. But the drug war is worse for us.

Once more I have made a hash of my explanation of my reasoning.

The reason the beer was exceptable to them was because it was legal for adults to buy. So how bad could it be? But pot was illegal for everyone so it must be bad.
Don't doubt half of those guys are alcoholics now. And in my book they are much more dangerous than a person that gets high on occasion.

Look if someone wants to smoke the occasional joint no sweat off my back. It is not my problem. What is my concern is what road we would be leading the next generation down by leagalising it. Call it responsible parenting. Part of that next generation is my offspring. Because of him and his offspring I hope they never leagalise it. And if smoking the ocasional joint is important enough for some people to already be breaking the law let them keep on doing it. Last time I was in California under an ounce was still just a ticket albiet an expensive one. But still basically a slap on the wrist

"Steamer,
I can only speak from personal experience and from what I know of what happened to people I know. But in our case you are wrong. We smoked pot first although pretty much anything was available where I grew up. Till we got bored with it and stepped up. Pot was still available but we were looking for something better, stronger, newer."

My personal experience is different. I abused alcohol for 15 years and smoked pot occasionally. I never did buy pot from a dealer, but I might have bought anything if I wasn't able to get alcohol. In those days, the liquor stores were closed on Sundays and the hours were limited during the week here.

Organized crime has always profited greatly on vices such as alcohol (during prohibition) and prostitution. Legalizing pot and incarcerating and providing treatment for addicts makes sense to me.

"The reason the beer was exceptable to them was because it was legal for adults to buy. So how bad could it be? But pot was illegal for everyone so it must be bad."

Gotcha ... I understand what you are saying now.

"What is my concern is what road we would be leading the next generation down by leagalising it."

The drug war creates more problems than it solves, so we should end it. What future generations decide may be different - and we should leave the future to them. We will be dead by then and they can make of the world what they will.

"We will be dead by then and they can make of the world what they will."

Personal responsibility for what I brought into this world. Not only do I feel responsible for shaping the boy so that he has a chance for a good future. I also feel responsible for leaving his enviorment in good enough shape so the future will be good for him.

I'd like to see studies on why people (be polite, now...) throw their support to indefensible concepts.

The Vatican took its time in supporting heliocentrism and also holocausted its own subjects (Inquisition). To its credit, it now defends evolution and the Bible as allegory.

Pirate Joe,
Apreciate the dialouge. Leaving for vacation from this damn computer in a few minutes so you folks have a wonderful fourth. Stay sober or stay off of the roads, cops are gonna be hell this weekend.
DaveG,
Curious, Which argument was indefensible???Apriciate " heliocentrism " had to look it up.

Do be sure to do this the right way, this ending "the war on drugs": Start by insisting on the letter of the Fourth Amendment.

You've been giving it up for convenience for too long already.

"I would not have been able to have held down a good job during my years of chemical abuse"

You need to learn to be a roofer or hang drywall. The drywall installers don't even have to worry about leftovers around the nostrils.

The "War on Drugs" has been an absolute success.

That's because the stated objectives and the actual objectives are substantially different.

The stated objectives, to stop Americans from drug use and abuse, are just another attempt to straitjacket humanity into a mythical utopia.

The entire scope of known Human history has ALWAYS had every single culture throughout time having pursued some form substance-based intoxication for religious and/or recreational purposes. Creating a government entity that seeks to stop this base human desire is the equivalent to forming a task force to stop the sun from rising.

The real goals? They've been accomplished a long time ago: to grow the expanse and scope of a centralized government, to further the acceptance of nanny state-ism by the general populace, to promote the further dysfunction of society by promoting criminality and to create an endless system of job security for the federally-funded, militarized police orgs and prison systems that exists throughout the country.

The War on Drugs is proceeding EXACTLY as planned.