It's at least possible that this argument needs to be considered in the other direction as well.

I think a lot of people in the illegal drug business wouldn't turn into Rotary Club members if drugs were legalized. There are people who're attracted to the industry because it's illegal. They've got "overzealous" temperaments, too.

There's more that's wrong with the world than policy.

No, Crid, they wouldn't -- but the hot TV business is far less lucrative. Look at the mob violence during Prohibition.

Yeah but but but

Listen, when a toddler throws his peas, Mom isn't patient because she knows he really hates peas. The rule is we don't throw our fucking food.

Decriminaliztion or legalization are not going to drop crime levels. Criminals are criminals because it's easier than honest work.

I understand that hardened criminals who are currently leaders in the drug war won't automatically become sunday school teachers if drugs are decriminalized. However, decriminalization or legalization will absolutely drop crime levels, just like the end of prohibition dropped crime levels, because people who just want to spark one at the end of a long week won't be engaged in a criminal activity. Additionally, responsible pot smokers (yes, they exist) would have an option to buy pot that is grown and sold legally, not by murderous criminals digging mass graves along the roadsides of mexico.

With regards to what those responsible pot smokers are like it is good to compare it to alcohol users. Just because someone likes to have a glass of wine at the end of the day doesn't mean they are chugging a bottle of jack and running over school children in cross walks on their way to work. Similarly, just because someone likes to smoke a bit of pot some evenings doesn't mean they are a foaming at the mouth out of control maniac that would sooner kill you than look at you.

Back in the day I used to drive all around Mexico, including the northern border area, and never felt in any way afraid. I'd be crazy to do it today. It's a crime what our insane drug laws are doing to that poor country.

It's not correct to think that decriminalization of drugs would solve all problems associated with drugs. There's certainly the potential that drug use and its attendant problems would increase (though the recent data from Portugal suggests this is not necessarily the case). However, the horrendous damage the drug war is doing on our streets, and that it is rapidly turning Mexico into a failed state, makes me think decriminalization is preferable.

Criminals are criminals because it's easier than honest work.

I'm not sure if that's the case. Or perhaps is just part of the case. That the drug business is really lucrative plays a big role.

Back in the day I used to drive all around Mexico, including the northern border area, and never felt in any way afraid. I'd be crazy to do it today. It's a crime what our insane drug laws are doing to that poor country.

A contractor in Mexico does a lot of the work on localization of our site; he's great - smart, hard working, reliable. And lives in fear for himself and his family, who have no part in that business at all. Lots of decent people end up as collateral damage.

If criminalization does not lead to higher crime rates, then let's fight the scourge of alcoholism (and I have one in my immediate family) by outlawing alcohol. Cigarettes too, while we are at it?

Why is it that the same people who whimper about laws that force you not to smoke in crowded areas, such as workplaces, then embrace the complete illegalization of pot?

So, your rights are violated if you can't smoke in a bar (where people work) but if you grow pot in your own yard and then smoke it, that makes it okay to throw you in jail?

I realize most GOP'ers exist in a framework free of ethical or moral consistency or standards. A vulgar predilection for their own biases governs their views.

But on drugs, it just becomes too obvious.

I realize most GOP'ers exist in a framework free of ethical or moral consistency or standards. A vulgar predilection for their own biases governs their views. But on drugs, it just becomes too obvious.

I guess President Obama is a GOPer since he is adamantly against legalization or decriminalization of marijuana. But really, why should facts spoil an invective, no?

Crid has a point: drug legalization will not shut down the Mexican gangs any more than the end of Prohibition shut down the Mafia. (Eventually, it's going to be necessary to take military action.) However, that's not a good reason to oppose legalization. The drug war is causing a whole lot of other problems. Such as, it's being increasingly used as a rationalization to ration and deny patients access to legal drugs that they need. If death panels do exist, the War on Drugs will be one of the things they use to justify their existence.

Overall Society has gone downhill. The descent has allowed increased drug use, increased profantiy, increased tolerance of crime etc. As noted in your book "...Rude People".
Nancy Reagan was right about one thing. Drug use is encouraged by yuppies who think it's okay to light up a doobie, (ok she didn't say "doobie" but you know what I mean.) The War on Drugs is fought in the streets of USA when we use pot or meth or coke etc.
Sure let's decriminalize it, legalize it, tax it but admit that as one famous turtle once said, "the enemy is us."

I've asked a few of the assistants and interns in Amy's office to come up with an award for people like you, Migs... A tee shirt, or a an iron-on patch for your denim jacket, or a wacky coffee mug...

Something to convey that while I can't technically disagree with anything you're saying, I still want to call you names.

OK, specifically:

> Overall Society has gone downhill.

It's the people who capitalized it that ruined it! In the broadest view of human history, things have never been better. Many components of civilization are a mess, including trends in character and our biological environment. But saying things used to be better ignores the quietest voices from history, the ones who were squelched or ignored.

A favorite example: Dubai put up a huge, supermodern skyline in the same amount of time it took New York City to break ground on buildings to replace the World Trade Center. That's because in the United States, no one, not even the government, can come in and dominate whole neighborhoods the way Rockefeller did to get the twin towers erected. Huge new sectors of public and private interest are enfranchised in ways that they weren't 50 years ago, and aren't in Dubai even today. Furthermore, Dubai was built with what is essentially slave labor.

Hitchens has another example: Name a slave. ANY slave. Their names were almost never recorded in narrative... Only the occasional chattel documents.

> The descent...

I hate the metaphor of high and low bearing in life; people who insist that culture ought to "elevate" are usually just signalling that they don't want to hang around with blacks or some other minority. Most of the rest of us would be happy if the "elevated" people would just keep their distance quietly. Decency trumps "elevation" every time.

> ...has allowed increased drug use

I dunno, I think every generation has some evil inebriants, with alcohol pinch-hitting where necessary.

> increased profantiy

I like profanity even more than I like good spelling. If you don't like it, don't talk to me. Making distance from others isn't has hard as people pretend it is.

> increased tolerance of crime etc.

Crimes been trending downward for quite awhile. Links on request.

> The War on Drugs is fought in the
> streets of USA when we use pot or
> meth or coke etc.

Perhaps, but I'm much more ashamed of its impact on distant cultures. The WOD has ruined our connections to entire continents.

The statist operating system of regulatory democracy must constantly expand and multiply it's fear-based memes to maintain what tenuous control it has. The state has to keep coming up with variations of the boogeyman (Hitler of the Month Club, war on terrorism), the sky is falling (global warming) and demons wreaking havoc on society (drugs, poverty, etc.) in order to pretend to step in and solve these problems thus justifying their mandate of a monopoly on the use of force (e.g. violence, theft). Of course, the state never solves a problem, it only makes them worse. Yet people accept Big Brother because of an irrational belief in "experts" to solve these manufactured problems because they prefer "feeling safe" to personal responsibility.