The legalization of drugs

What rule have I violated?

I apologize this was my first post I attempted to format properly. I am still learning this site.First let me say anyone who says the government, local law enforcement and individuals are lining there pockets with money from the war on drugs are misinformed, under informed or liars. I can reference numerous other sources if necessary. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/12/1216.html:

quote:

---

Civil forfeiture allows the government to profit from black market assets through criminal windfall. Billions of dollars in forfeitures are distributed to help create drug enforcement agencies that become special interest groups, dependent on the very black market they are designed to stop.

---

Error 403 - Forbidden:

quote:

---

During the 25 years of its existence, the "War on Drugs" has transformed the criminal justice system, to the point where the imperatives of drug law enforcement now drive many of the broader legislative, law enforcement, and corrections policies in counterproductive ways. One significant impetus for this transformation has been the enactment of forfeiture laws which allow law enforcement agencies to keep the lion's share of the drug-related assets they seize. Another has been the federal law enforcement aid program, revised a decade ago to focus on assisting state anti-drug efforts. Collectively these financial incentives have left many law enforcement agencies dependent on drug law enforcement to meet their budgetary requirements, at the expense of alternative goals such as the investigation and prosecution of non-drug crimes, crime prevention strategies, and drug education and treatment. In this article we present a legal and empirical analysis of these laws and their consequences. In so doing, we seek to explain why the drug war continues with such heavy emphasis on law enforcement and incarceration, and show the way to more rational policies.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.serendipity.li/wod.html:

quote:

---

In Rethinking Drug Prohibition Peter Webster also points out that there are multiple factors sustaining the Drug War:

​

* It's a useful tool for politicians seeking to whip up the electorate.
* It profits the prison industry and even the weapons industry.
* Legalization would threaten the profits of the pharmaceutical industry.

---

* Legalization would threaten the profits of the tobacco and alcohol indust
Economics of Drug Policy and the Drug War | Drug Policy Facts:

quote:

---

According to ONDCP, the $18.822 Billion spent by the federal government on the drug war in 2002 breaks down as follows:
Treatment (with Research): $3.587 Billion (19.1% of total)
Prevention (with Research): $2.548 Billion (13.5% of total)
Domestic Law Enforcement: $9.513 Billion (50.5% of total)
Interdiction: $2.074 Billion (11.0% of total)
International: $1.098 Billion (5.8% of total) In other words, $12.686 Billion in 2002 was directed to supply reduction, i.e. law enforcement (67.4% of total), and $6.136 Billion to demand reduction, i.e. treatment, prevention and education (32.6% of.

---

Property Seizures
Property Seizures for Drugs - Percentage of People who have property seized who are not charged with a crime.Although this is off topic it MUSTbe considered:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.raiseyourvoice.com/statereport/fallingthrough.pdf That is less mature than me saying Christianity is the only religion that has used violence. Poor people steal copper too. Although I am not rushing to the aide of meth heads that is too broad a statement to be taken seriously. It is hog-wash. Unless you have some studies I am unaware of.I can dig up some information. But believe me when I say I do not bullshit. The DEA is hitting up and going after the smaller guys. Local law enforcement (LE) is going after the little guys. Read your paper if you doubt this. Think about it for every major bust you hear about 100 - 500 small ones have happened. I understand larger busts take more time and man power. However, the ratios are unacceptable.I must also insist you are stopping short of irrational if you feel taking pseudo ephedrine off the shelves is going to slow meth production. This goes back to the previous paragraph. Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTOs) are responsible for well over 50% of this countries meth consumption. These DTOs are out of country- guess where, Meh-e-ko! I assure you the Mexican DTOs are not going to Wal-Mart to purchase otc medication. 10% - 15 % comes from Canada. Canada has no restriction on pseudo ephedrine. 'Super labs' which are labs capable of making over 10 pounds a year are responsible for producing at least 25%. When you are kicking out 10-50 pounds a year of meth the ROI is not justifiable if you reduce pills. When you are a major player in the game you are not going to Wal-Mart either. I would assume at least 10% of instate meth production comes from NH3 labs and not ephedrine as a starting block.Sorry about that rant. It is winter now. I get sick. When I go to CVS to get my meds I am treated like a criminal without just cause. The cold hard truth remains. Since restriction of products associated with meth manf and education on such products the epidemic has gotten worse. I have briefly outlined why. I am receptive to detail it at a later date as well.Edited by PurpleTeddyBear, : Still learning

---

We are born, we live then we die.

Hell is weremost of the human race is going according to the most populr religions.

sorry none of the ove

simple quote without any of your own input.

I was asked by another member to substantiate my claim that meth addicts steal metal to sell them to support their habit, so that's what I did. Whether or not poor people steal copper too is pretty much irrelevant aside from the fact that many, if not most, meth addicts are poor for rather obvious reasons. I'm not sure where you are going with this portion of your post. I'm aware that the little fish lead to bigger ones. I don't know what to tell you other than it has slowed it down in my city which has recently been reputed to have the worst meth problem in the nation per capita. You have to understand that making meth requires money in order to buy the chemicals for making it. And most people that run meth labs are addicts themselves who cook that crap and inhale the fumes all day long. It appears to be working in other places as well. Nobody said that they are going to eradicate meth by restricting pseudo-ephedrine."Iowa's three-month-old limits on the sale of pseudoephedrine -- a legal cold remedy that doubles as a key methamphetamine ingredient -- have succeeded in slashing the number of hidden homegrown labs churning out the highly-addictive drug." -DrugSense WeeklyThe restriction of pseudo-ephedrine in most states consists of a few criteria depending on your state. Most states have a reasonable outline that typically consists of the sale of products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine to any person less than 18 years of age is prohibited. The single over-the-counter sale can't exceed more than two packages, which equals 48 tablets. The single sale of liquid ephedrine is limited to two per month. Okay, there is no earthly reason why anyone should consume more than that in a month even in a large family. So its not like they are inconveniencing you. If you consume more than 48 tablets a month, I'd say your bigger concern is your immune system rather than given the third degree by the pharmacist. And to mention, they don't hassle you unless you exceed that amount. They just won't give you more than they are required by law. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

That's not proof, that's a pic of a meth addict. It's an appeal to emotion - it doesn't say anything about legalisation.It IS a very sad picture, though.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Yes, but the little fish are the ones who are criminalised whilst the big fish have the money and means to avoid trouble. The little fish are the ones overcrowding jails (where they are still able to get drugs). The little fish are the ones committing crimes to get a fix when they aren't in jail.This isn't a black or white issue, so accordingly the solution isn't black or white. The blanket ethos of all-out prohibition simply doesn't work, so some sort of rational compromise must be found. The controlled legalisation of some hard drugs will certainly not solve the problem at a stroke - it will no doubt breed its own problems - but it may help ease the overall problem.First thing that needs to be realised is that not all drugs are the same. Here in Europe there is a much more tolerant position on cannabis, for example. This comes not only from the cannabis lobby, but also from the many police officers who resent the time wasted on something which is, in general, is far less harmful than other drugs.

cannabis should be legal, it hasn't been shown to be harmful at all, hell i read that sleep depravation is more harmful than cannabis is!the whole thing isn't even about the thc in the plant its about, what you can do with hemp, they just distorted the reality of what it can do, to demonize it to the point that hemp = evilif we used hemp, we would never have to use a tree to make anything again! or wool or a lot of things
many big buiness people would see a loss if they allowed hemp to be used for paper, instead of wood, the logging industry would go down the tubes
i mean even if it wasn't for this what does cannabis do? it makes you think crap is overly funny and hungry, is that worse than alchohol that can lead to death? other than deadly allergic reactions to the plant, i've never heard of someone dying from poton the other hand meth IS deadly and a huge problem in kansas and the midwest in general, being that i work at walmart i have a bunch of stuff come across my regaster, that you wouldn't think should be 18 and over, but it is
cough syrup, pills, sudaphed, which is used to make meth, even if it was sold like everything else, which it isn't anymore, you could only get it in limited ammounts per day, like 2the fact is that you can make this junk from easly apptained items, well in comparison to say cocaine . shows that its a deadly drug, when you could unknowingly buy it laced with rat poison or something worsethe worst problem for me is, since it easy to make if you can get the items for it, they try to make it harder to get them, since they are common things that normal people use to cure things or use them for normal purposes, it makes it even worse to get the items, since they work the best sometimes

The war on drugs is unwinnable - because it's a war on Man's wants and needs and such wars always fail.I say make it legal and let the addicts get their daily dose from a government licensed clinic. Far better that way, generating tax revenue that allowing the illegal trade to increase levels of crime and infection.If someone wants to get smacked off their face all day, what business is it of mine? Currently it is my business because those wrenches are trying to climb in my windows and mug me on the streets to fund their habit.

I'm answering your last two posts to me in this one...It looks like you and I share some of the same questions regarding Jar's plans. Too bad it appears they will go unanswered. Ahhhh... another "perfect solution" unavailable to the unwashed masses. The dutch are not all as openminded as they are marketed to the world. The current PM (hopefully soon to be ex-PM) was actually calling for a reversal on mj tolerance. I have watched dutch people massively lay in to those that do dope and sometimes pretend ignorance that there are coffee shops and hash museums. Really, I'm not kidding. Heck, I've had people involved as tourist info guides pretend not to know such places existed as well as things like sex clubs and nudist beaches. "I don't think so, and anyway I wouldn't know about such things." Tut tut.Thus it is a sort of stalemate existence between people that are tolerant and those who are not. It should be added that though mj is tolerated there are still restrictions on its production and sale. Its not like you can simply start growing a farm of it.As I have mentioned they also have clinics for hard drug users. Frankly I disagree with your assessment of what decriminalization would lead to, though clearly your assessment is more accurate than Jar's. Addicts do sell and trade hard drugs, despite free access.Freedom would more likely allow the ability to choose better drugs rather than get forced into an addiction (of other products) because of artificial constraints on supply. Also the addicts (even if for some reason there were more) could be assured of a more safe supply, and treatment for their condition. In an illegal situation it is lose-lose. I am not a smoker, and intriguingly I have never used mj. Not even once. Despite being in the mecca of free dope, and been with friends and family who do use it, inside and outside of coffeeshops, I just don't have the urge.This sort of kills the argument for me that legalized drugs will result in tons of people using them. You have an interest in it, or you don't. And even those that have an interest in trying, may not want to continue with it. Once it is treated like anything else in life, it becomes like anything else in life.This has of course been supported by the failure of Prohibition and resultant return to normalcy for alcohol. I agree that hard drugs can be more addictive... but that does not suggest that more will be interested in taking them in the first place, especially with valid alternatives. Yes it is. Send away.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

quote:

---

sleep depravation

---

Wow, what kind of sleep is that?

I had initially stated that meth is 'awful,' because it is. Somebody was daft enough to ask me for proof that meth is bad for you, as if it needs any explanation. All it takes is taking a good hard look at some of them as they're frantically scratching off their own skin, shivering uncontrollably, or speaking gibberish. I don't need an article from the the New England Journal of Medicine to unambiguously prove the dangers of methamphetamines.My question is why I'm even being challenged on this issue? Do we have defenders of meth in here?

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

You're right to say that the little fish are crowding the jails, but not to worry. They'll be out in a day to a week for the next batch. What they aren't crowding is the prisons. Yes, there is a difference. Catching the big fish is difficult. But if you'll notice, most law enforcement agencies go after the consumer or the small time dealer. They use them to find the mid-level dealers and high-level peddlers who are actually fueling the addictions of thousands. All out prohibition was a complete and utter disaster in the US. The givernment dawdled for two years before they said, 'to hell with it' and decriminalized alcohol again. And when I was living in Flagstaff, Arizona, I saw the effects that prohibition had on the Navajo's and Hopi. It didn't work. It just the lined the pockets of the tribal leaders who could give a whit about their people. Having said that, total relaxation on drugs isn't the answer either. There have been excellent retorts from Modulous and Holmes that the proponents of such a measure need to examine before making their decision. I fully agree. Again, I agree. I wrote a personal story on this thread about just such a waste of time and explained why a few pages ago.

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

But that's not what was asked of you! The comments ran as follows: Though the wording added some confusion, you were clearly being asked for proof that lesgalisation wouldn't work, not proof that meth is dangerous! Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.