Probably not in our lifetime.
The govt would lose face admitting how wrong they were/are.
Big pharma would lose money as people quit 'needing' their chemical fixes.
Prisons would no longer be full. We'd have to make up new crimes to fill them (although we're already doing that).

In my opinion, the only truly regrettable thing for Phelps was having an asshole for a friend who took his photo and thereby let the "whole world" know that Phelps was smoking pot.

Hopefully, Phelps has better friends now.

Never bought the gateway drug argument (gateway for adrenaline in Phelps case?) but will note that my step-brothers are a generation older - old hippies in their late 60s - and all of their friends who smoked pot regularly are dead, mostly from brain tumors. Would like research on the brain changes on pot over time, the psychosis some experience the very first time they smoke and an honest discussion, but that's about as likely as more research re the possibilities of LSD in solving alcoholism that were stopped decades ago.

Don't smoke pot kids. Or you might end up one of the most decorated Olympians in history or president of the United States.

There is one coherent argument to pot being a "gateway drug" and it's 100% DARE's fault. The drug education efforts grade school kids get paint every drug encounter in a dire light - "Pot will fry your brain like an egg kids!" When the kids inevitably try marijuana after that they realize that DARE was full of shit about pot. Ergo, they must be overstating the dangers of harder drugs like heroin and meth too.

For those who argue that their child used to be a straight-A student until he/she started smoking pot, I would say: "Never underestimate teens' secret desire to escape responsibility."

That is, kids who are scared of growing up have always found excuses to ruin their grades, whether through too much TV-watching or skateboarding. Don't blame the drugs - necessarily.

Oh, and re Phelps, check THIS out:

http://www.theagitator.com/2009/02/01/a-letter-id-like-to-see-but-wont/

It's a fictional piece written by Radley Balko. It's very good.

However, one thing not mentioned (as Sam Harris did in his book, "The End of Faith") is how horribly short we are on cash for the prevention of nuclear terrorism and how this wouldn't be the case if pot were legal.

First lines:

Dear America,

I take it back. I don’t apologize.

Because you know what? It’s none of your goddamned business. I work my ass off 10 months per year. It’s that hard work that gave you all those gooey feelings of patriotism last summer. If during my brief window of down time I want to relax, enjoy myself, and partake of a substance that’s a hell of a lot less bad for me than alcohol, tobacco, or, frankly, most of the prescription drugs most of you are taking, well, you can spare me the lecture........

(snip)

Amy, I just have to laugh. Do you get to select the ads which show up on your posts? Or are they triggered by key words?

Either way, it is just too funny that the ad showing up on the left (on my computer screen anyway) is for "Puff It Vaporizer."

I don't smoke (pot or anything) as it would trigger my asthma; but I found this ad along with this post to be appropriately funny! Thanks!

Why does the discussion always stop at pot? Right now I could use some better painkillers...a friend gave me some of his lortabs and they were great for my back pain. But I dread doing the handstands I need to do to get an Rx from my doctor, because some lowlifes abuse drugs.

Make everything legal OTC.

So, let me get this straight about what has been presented right here on this blog:

1) Making it easy to get welfare and "raise" a child out of wedlock has resulted in record numbers of simgle mothers and a direct, causal relationship to crime.

2) Making it easy to get drugs will reduce crime and lead to greater responsibility on the part of the public.

Is that about right?

One of these things is not like the other.

Because there are people, and lots of them, who would be forever crazed by an encounter with crack or meth. Is that OK because "legalizing" drugs would magically eliminate drug abuse, and the real sticking point, the abuse of police power?

"No drug makes people use it or other drugs. The causes of drug abuse are life conditions that motivate people to act destructively toward themselves and others."

Bullshit. The majority of drugs are inherently addictive no matter what your conditions in life. Nicotine, for one. Amphetamines. Opiates. Painkillers. One of the scariest is Oxycontin--should be taken off the market IMO.

It's just that pot doesn't fall into this category and shouldn't be treated as such.

To claim that marijuana isn't physically addicting is naive, at best. Heavy users have the worst of the withdrawal symptoms, just like heavy drinkers or cigarette smokers. Anger and insomnia are common withdrawal symptoms.

However, I wouldn't rank the addictive qualities any worse than the legal substances of nicotine or alcohol. And the long-term effects are considerably safer.

The "gateway" problem is something I've witnessed with several friends. And I firmly believe that if marijuana was legalized, the issue would disappear. In a small town, I saw that when the local dealer would run dry, people would be willing to try something new in an attempt to get the same buzz. Some people would even try to snort something a one-toothed man named Bubba cooked up in his bathroom (and not even ask what was in it...you know just a basic combination of general household cleaners, fertilizer, and cold medicine). I'm a firm believer a large percentage of that idiocy would disappear if we could run to the local supermarket and purchase "green" food or supplies to maker our own.

If the gateway hypothesis (i.e. that the use of milder drugs leads to the use of harder drugs) is correct, then the two most common gateway drugs are tobacco and alcohol. Many drug addicts used marijuana before they started using "hard" drugs. Virtually all used alcohol and/or tobacco - and most continued to do so while using other drugs.

I don't know why alcohol is not considered to be a "hard" drug. Is it just because it's legal?
- It's highly addictive. Many people have a withdrawal syndrome after one day of heavy drinking - they call it a "hangover" and often relieve the symptoms by consuming more alcohol.
- The withdrawal syndrome can be life threatening and often has to be treated in a hospital, sometimes in an intensive care unit.
- The mental and physical damage can be permanent.
- There are more people addicted to it than to all illegal drugs combined.
- It causes more damage to the lives of addicts and the people around them, and to the economy, than illegal drugs (except maybe for the cost of The War On Drugs).
- When they made the manufacture, sale and transportation of alcohol illegal, from 1920 to 1933 (personal possession and consumption were not illegal) the people simply would not tolerate it, and the organized crime and violent crime rates skyrocketed.

Regarding illegal drugs: The criminal "justice" system does more damage to the lives of drug users than the drugs do.

Radwaste: "2) Making it easy to get drugs will reduce crime and lead to greater responsibility on the part of the public."

I don't know about "greater responsibility on the part of the public", but the fact that making illegal drugs legal will reduce crime should be self evident, since the currently very common crimes of manufacturing, selling, transporting and consuming illegal drugs will no longer be crimes.

Jeez, that big, downtown jail I used to work in would lose at least half of its business. What would all those cops do? Hopefully make life hell on earth for other kinds of criminals. Or maybe they'd just bust more organic food co-ops.

"Don't do drugs because if you do drugs you'll go to prison, and drugs are really
expensive in prison."
-John Hardwick

"Our laws are telling people, 'If you're concerned about getting caught, don't use marijuana, use cocaine.' Well, that is not necessarily what people want to do."
-Judge James Gray, author of "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It."

"So...drinking can equal productivity!"

And repeatedly, after chiding others for presenting anecdotes and insisting that that is data, you offer exceptions in anecdotes to pretend that making drugs more available would lead to less abuse.

Not shown.

During the prohibition years (1920 to 1933) alcohol consumption dropped by half. Liver cirrhosis went down by two thirds. But crime, especially organized crime and violent crime, went up. Even though alcohol consumption was way down, everyone who manufactured, sold or transported it became a criminal.

In the 1920's some stores sold concentrated grape juice with warning labels that listed all the steps to avoid to prevent the grape juice from turning into an alcoholic beverage.

In 1830 Americans, on average, consumed about three times as much hard liquor as in 2010.

Needle exchange programs are not very effective because IV drug users still reuse their new needles, they don't know how to use a sterile technique to keep from contaminating a sterile needle before they use it, and even if they have a new, sterile needle the drugs themselves are dirty.

Here in Washington (state), we have Initiative 502 -- which would legalize, tax and regulate sales of marijuana -- on the ballot this fall. I suspect it won't pass, by a narrow margin, but I'm sure hoping it will. Washington is certainly one of the states likely to eventually legalize pot. It will probably never happen in conservative southern states.

In this article, Alison Holcomb, coordinator for the New Approach Washington campaign, says that "women...tend to be less supportive of marijuana reform than men."

Norm Stamper, former police chief in Seatte (now retired), is in favor of marijuana legalization and regulation. So is our local travel guru, Rick Steves, who always gives a talk at our two-day Hempfest in late August.

Radwaste: Is that OK because "legalizing" drugs would magically eliminate drug abuse,

I'm not aware of any legalization advocate claiming that legalizing pot would "magically eliminate drug abuse." Alcohol is legal and that hardly eliminates alcohol abuse. But as we learned with Prohibition, making it illegal caused more problems than having it legal.

Cat: To claim that marijuana isn't physically addicting is naive, at best. Heavy users have the worst of the withdrawal symptoms, just like heavy drinkers or cigarette smokers. Anger and insomnia are common withdrawal symptoms.

It certainly wasn't physically addicting for me. At all. I began smoking pot in my late teens and continued for about 30 years. I wasn't a heavy user but I did smoke fairly consistently. I missed it once I quit (I love music and it always enhanced listening to music) but had no withdrawal symptoms, or craving, whatsoever.

Two years before I quit, my then-girlfriend and I went on a six week trip to Itay and France. Due to security, I didn't bring any pot with me (and I did't try to buy any while I was there) so I was pot-less for six weeks and it didn't bother me one bit. On the other hand, my girlfriend, who smoked cigarettes as well as pot, was going going crazy on our flight not being able to suck on a cigarette and had to have one as soon as we arrived at the Venice airport (and she had to suck on cigs during our entire trip.)