Jesse: It sounds like our law enforcement precipitated the violence.  If we legalized drugs, none of this would have happened.  Also, if you feel awkward living near where people die, what are you doing in the military?!?

  Jesse,

      Just wanted you to know that you're in my Thoughts and Prayers.  Take care of yourself, and come home for your girls.

     God Bless and Protect

Do you really think legalizing cocaine would cause them to be any less violent or agrassive? Do you know they target the Health Care professionales who try to help the addicted year round? Do you think arresting people in this country makes them killing people justified? Do you really think if you leave them alone they will leave you alone? Do you think if you make what they do not a crime they would be nicer people and just let those who they take money from just quit whenever they want? What do you stand against? I get confused sometimes.

Let me answer your questions first:

Do you really think legalizing cocaine would cause them to be any less violent or aggressive?  Yes.

Do you know they target the Health Care professionals who try to help the addicted year round?  Yes.

Do you think arresting people in this country makes them killing people justified?  No.  There is no justification for killing.

Do you really think if you leave them alone they will leave you alone?  It dramatically improves the odds of them leaving me alone.

Do you think if you make what they do not a crime they would be nicer people and just let those who they take money from just quit whenever they want?  Maybe.

What do you stand against?  Not sure what you mean.

The primary motivator behind the drug industry is money -- just like any other industry.  The more the potential for profit, the more businessmen (in this case, some not so nice ones) will be attracted into business.

US drug laws cannot inhibit demand for drugs, they only make it illegal -- i.e. a black market.  Because operating a black market business is hazardous, prices are pushed exponentially higher than they would otherwise be.  Thus the reward for marketing drugs is extremely high.

As strained as the relationship between drug lords and police departments is, a symbiotic relationship exists.  Both parties profit heavily form the war on drugs.  If drugs were legalized, the potential profit would be dramatically reduced.  The cartels in Mexico and further south, would cease to find profit in the costly operations they run.

With the prices pulled out from under them, the incentive to kill healthcare workers would be dramatically reduced (if not completely removed).

There are many other negative side effects of the war on drugs.  If you are interested, I can dig up some articles for you.

It is probably worth mentioning, that I do not advocate general drug use.  I encourage anyone using drugs (including alcohol, nicotine, etc.), except for medical necessity, to seriously consider stopping.

Chris, I think you need to do more reading on the drug issue and the war on drugs.  You as well as libertarians in general seem to want to simplify something that is very complex.  It is not as simple as legalizing drugs.  Do you read anything that ever is against some of the ideas you have?  You need to get a wider view.  I am attaching a link to an article that was written in 1997 about the war on drugs and legalizing drugs.  It is a long read  and I admit I had to read a lot to pull out a couple of ideas and points.  But this issue is very complex and will not be solved by simply legalizing drugs.   The debate over the drug war is just another way to try to show that you are anti-government and pro individualism.  But you have to look deeper at some of these issues.   The use of heroin and crack cocaine are devastating to families and society.   Being able to get them cheaper and more abundantly will only have a negative impact on society.  But it is even more complex than that.  Look at these issues individually and not with an across the board libertarianist view.  Take your own stance, not one of a 'party' or group.   And we all have to admit that we do not have all the answers.  But be very careful about what you promote and why.  Link:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/7_2_a1.html

Judy:

Your comments are feeling a lot like personal attacks.  Can we discuss the issue without the jabs?  Saying that

• I need to do more reading,
• that I over simply things,
• that my position is just a party line,
• that I have to look deeper at the issues,
• that I should look at an issue individually rather than applying a principle I believe in,
• and repeatedly reminding me to be "careful"

don't really aid in understanding the issue.  Also, while I appreciate you linking to sources that you reference, simply assigning reading without voicing your own position is frustrating!  I am happy to discuss these issues with you, but I can't respond of you haven't shared your ideas.

One reason you asserted for outlawing drugs was the negative impact of "heroin and crack cocaine" on "families and society."  I agree that drugs have this negative impact, but I ask in response: would you favor outlawing alcohol again?  It too is "devastating to families and society."

The attack is on ideas and questioning that the argument is truly researched.  I personally cannot say that legalizing them would be a good thing; I am still reading.  But I see that it is not a black/white issue; it is very complex.  The case for alcohol is a little different.  A glass of wine with dinner is nothing like shooting up with cocaine.  Plus I believe a person has more control over alcohol, although there are those who become controlled by it.   One thought about the hard drugs is that in a society that can easily and legally get drugs such as cocaine and heroin then I believe you would have increased (mental) health care problems as well as a much less productive society.    People on hard drugs get hooked and then they become a problem for all of us.  Even if it is legal they may not be able to hold a job and will continue to get the money to buy it any way they can (which translates to crime).  Because it is legal does not mean it is free.  And the hoodlums out there will probably try to sell it a little cheaper than the legal versions and you have the same problem all over again.  The big corporations will be the ones making the money on the legal side; the hoodlums will probably still be out there.  So, I don't have a good argument yet.  I am very skeptical of the argument to legalize hard drugs.  There are major problems with hard drugs but I am not sure legalizing them will fix things.  As I have time I will be doing more reading.   I hope you will too.  Convince me!  LOL

I think Senator Jim Webb may be on to something.  His Prison Reform bill/commission looks very promising and I think that some good ideas and changes can come from it.

I am curious as to which drugs you are talking about when you say they should be legal.  Would you legalize crack and PCP?  And if you did not there would still be a black market.  I am afraid there would continue to be a black market regardless.   Who would be allowed to buy the drugs?  Those who could not (and there would probably be some categories, i.e., people in public safety jobs, minors, etc) would go to the black market.  So I don't really think that it is correct to say that if all drugs were made legal the cartels and pushers would go away.   It just is not that simple to me.  Also, people who are addicted will continue to commit crimes, if not to supply their habit, then at the very least to buy food and necessities (because most of them will not be able to hold down a job).  But I do think there are aspects of this problem that need to be looked at and studied.  I am confused on some of what I have read about incarceration of users as opposed to sellers.  And I think that some changes are probably needed in how we look at that, concentrate on getting people help instead of a criminal record.  But the guys pushing the stuff and selling it...they need to go to jail.  Just a few thoughts.  This is a very hot topic and can be a very emotional one.  

Do you have any conclusive proofs of governments that after have made these substances legal have seen the violent crimes associated with them go down? If it was legal what do you think the prices would adjust to? I agree that the motivator behind the industry is money and lots of it. Billions of dollars annually. How would you go about proactively discouraging people from using those substances? Drug laws cannot and never will be able to inhibit demand or desire for drugs but the law can’t inhibit the desire for some to rape either. The law is not intended to eleminate the desire it is intended to make going through with those desires not worth the consequenses. Is it authentic change of heart or desire? Not hardly. It is simply intended to deter the behavior. It seems like you are arguing for apathy almost.

Saying the cartels would cease to profit is like saying electronic manufactures in Asia would not make money if we made electronics in America. If they had a manufacturing and distribution system in place why would they give it up? These are organizations that have highly coordinate networks invest lots of money into their security. If they did not have to have the security for the risk of the government or a competitor stealing their product their profit margins would go up. Their transport costs would go down too.

It seems like you are just recycling rhetoric sometimes. I would be interested to read of any situations where when drug use was legalized drug consumption went down because people choose to “just do the right thing” and quit.

Alcohol is outlawed. Anything over a .08% content is DWI and DUI is simply driving while inhibited by anything, even a prescription drug. It is not illegal to own or consume above the age of 21 but society has put out some guidelines and consequenses for violating those guidelines. Should we allow anyone to drink what ever amount they want and then get behind the wheel? If they did away with the immediate legal consequenses of drinking and driving would there be fewer deaths from alcohol related crashes?

Since you do agree that heroin and crack have a negative impact on society. What how do you suggest we as a society protect ourselves from the negative effects of unrestricted substance use? How do you suggest we as a people discourage that sort of behavior with out placing ourselves in in a state of isolation from the rest of the people in the world. If you agree that the use of crack and heroin has a negative on families and society why do you not allow for families and society to have a negative affect on that behavior?

It seems to be more about if we as a society should be allowed to apply negative conequences to certain behaviors or not rather than the amount or type of consequences. Liberty and responsibility go hand in hand. If a person is not , by choice or some other reason, able to be or being responsible are they still afforded all their fredoms? A person who is mentaly handicapped is usually not able to drive. A person who choses to become mentally handicapped by drinking is also not allowed to drive? Some substances affect the mind and body much more than others and that is a factor in these issues. Alcohol and THC seem the most managable substances. Coke, crystal meth, LSD, heroin, extacy, and speed seem to have a much more devesting affect on both individuals and society.

I really see two issues here.

#1: I think we can all agree that drugs generally have a devestating impact on individuals, families, and society. What isn't as clear is how the legalization of drugs would change things. Would there be more violence, theft, and dysfunction, or less? I have read arguments on both sides, and I agree with Aunt Judy that this is a complicated issue. Unfortunately I don't have time to read up on it much right now.

#2: Should drugs be illegal from the perspective of personal liberty? Is what I put in my own body up to me or up to the government? Obviously if I commit a crime against someone else, that is a problem; but also a different issue.

I wish I had time to do some more studying on the topic, but instead I have to finish writing 2 papers for school...

Good luck with your papers, Somer!  And maybe you should be glad you don't have time to read up on this issue!  LOL  I think if I read another viewpoint on this issue I will explode!  I wll be looking at what might come out of Jim Webb's legislation to examine and maybe change some aspects of our criminal justice/incarceration system.  He seems to have a level head but have not read anything about any details yet.

"On July 1, 2001, a nationwide law in Portugal took effect that decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin." Read the rest of the article if you are wondering how it turned out.

It appears that the Portuguese people have decided that putting someone in a cage for using drugs is not a very good idea.

The key here is 'decriminalized' not 'legalized'.  I would imagine that is a big part of Jim Webb's propsoed examination of this.  I would like to know more about how the distributors and pushers are treated in Portugal.  Just like the criminals they are, I would suppose.  But i agree....maybe the whole argument here has been a misconception of terms.....

If what you put into your body may put me at risk I want some say in my safty without having to go into hiding!

Lol. I was already at CATO reading their comments on "Graveyard of Nations".

Thank you.