Tabacco may kill the user (great put a heavy tax on it). Alcohol may also kill its user. Hovever, many times innocent people go along for the ride....... domestic violence, DWIs. Actually that's not true...most times the drunk idiot lives. Leagalizing drugs would result in the deaths of a lot more "innocent people".

Drugs and alcohol cause domestic violence like guns cause murder.

Life is like a grapefruit - it is colorful and squishy and has a few pips in it...and some ffolkes have half a one for breakfast.

Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin

I would guess there is a good reason guns are prohibited in places that serve alcohol. Guns are cool, I like guns. Guns on an unstable person with liquid courage flowing through his blood is not cool.
Hard drugs are not anything like pot, tabacco or alcohol. People who are hooked on these drugs are willing to do things your average drunk or pot-head would not even consider. Heavy taxes would not be a problem for this new legion of crackheads that leagalizing drugs would create. More than likely they would be paying with money belonging to the non-drug users (innocent people).

Yep. The individual make the decision to smoke crack, drink in excess or pull the trigger or throw that punch. You can make all the laws you want and people will still make the decision to locate and consume drugs, alcohol, guns and they will still beat their wives.

It's all about your decisions, personal responsibility and self control. Laws cannot control that, only you can.

IMHO....Even with legalized drugs, you would still have the Black Market and folks willing to kill for a market share or a fix.

Denying people the right to carry in places, based on keeping the lawbreakers from doing likewise, is a bit like locking the barn after the horse is out.

I think restricting the rights of law-abiders in hopes that those who shouldn't drink and carry, won't drink and carry, is a bad trade-off.

There have been cries that changing the laws in many states to allow carry in places that serve alcohol would lead to drunken shootouts by CCW holders (the same argument they used to deny CCWs in the first place). These arguments have not proven to be true.

Please provide me the details of any CCW holders who carried into a place serving alcohol, imbibed, and misused their weapons.

Do we stop drunk driving by banning drivers from businesses that serve alcohol?

TR

The only reason the Mexican drug lords have so much money/power is because Americans are buying their drugs. I think that those inclined to take illegal substances will always find a way to get their hands on what they want. I also wonder how much of the "sexy factor" comes into play with people who think it's exciting to participate in something that is considered taboo. Of course that isn't such a great idea with highly addictive substances, but I doubt that red flag pops up in the head of the average addict.

I live on the Navajo Reservation, and have lived here off and on since '88. Alcohol is illegal here on the 'rez, which I think is a perfect example of "good initiative, bad judgment" in relation to the topic of legalizing drugs. In an effort to prevent the abuse of alcohol on the 'rez, the Navajo Nation does not allow the possession, use or sale of alcohol on its land. A very noble endeavor, but us humans always find a way to get what we want. Some folks simply do their drinking off of the 'rez, and/or (typically and) bring some liquor back with them. The hardcore alcoholics end up becoming "glaanis" (beggars/bums), asking for money outside of shops and using the cash to buy booze (or hairspray if they can't afford the real stuff).

Then there are the bootleggers. One of my friend's dads has a small booklet FULL of contact info for bootleggers, and the info is just for that town! Of course they double/triple the prices for the booze, since they are providing it as a convenience. The nearest towns off the 'rez can be over a 3-hour drive depending on where you live.

There is also the fact that the bootleggers don't care who they sell to. They will sell to anyone, at any age. I remember going with my friends to pick up some Garden Deluxe from a bootlegger when we were in 6th grade. I had to hide in the bushes while they went up to the house, since the presence of a "bilagaana" (anglo) kid would probably make the bootleggers a bit uncomfortable. A few minutes later my friends returned with the booze, and off we went into the desert on our BMX bikes.

I'm not saying legalizing alcohol would prevent abuse on the 'rez. However, it's apparently difficult to address a problem that isn't supposed to exist since it's illegal. How many officials would be willing to approve some sort of alcoholics anonymous type of program when alcohol is illegal? I would much rather have legalized alcohol so there are controls in place to make it harder for minors to get booze, so they can tax it and educate the public on alcohol abuse (maybe throw a little $$ to the schools to improve overall education, too), and of course have one less opportunity for bad people to do bad things.

I understand why people want drugs to remain illegal: they turn people into addicts and ruin lives. I also understand the government's reluctance to legalize drugs, as I doubt it would take long for a parent to sue for "making" their child an addict. But personally I would rather have to deal with one idiot trying to break into my home looking for things to steal so he can get his next fix than a squad of assassins pulling up next to my vehicle with high-caliber weapons because I said hi to one of their ex-girlfriends.

TR, with all due respect, it doesn't happen often, yet it does happen. One of my former students had a "stupidity spasm" outside of Marfa about a year ago.

It appears he had a temper anyway and he was drinking ( already legal in Texas ).

He started a verbal argument ( a no-no when carrying ) with a Hell's Angels wannabe.

He escalated the verbal argument ( a no-no when carrying ) and took it outside to the parking lot.

He got into the guy's face and sliipped out his Keltec 32, slipped it upder the guy's chin and set it off, killing the biker ( another no-no). Killed someone on verbal provacation alone.

Although it doesn't happen often and there is no bloodbath, some folks that get a CHL that are already marginal in the impulse control department get extra stupid after drinking, even a little.

They figure they'll display the gun just to shut someone up and then an accident happens.

The legal counsel at DPS ( the actual person that appears in court to take away your license ) said that over half of the total CHL revocations are alcohol related in some fashion. Those statistics are imbedded in other crimes lsited on the DPS website.

Still legal to drink and carry in Texas, yet I'm just sayin'... :munchin

If you need more details, I can dig around at the academy this weekend for info or ask the constable about it since he went to the hearing for this guy.

TR, I have no official stats to offer, I'm just giving my opinions.
I work the night shift on my job and usually eat my lunch between 2:00am and 3:00am. My buddies and I can eat for free at at one restaurant and get 1/2 price at another. Both restaurants are located next to a club that closes at 2:00. Every so often we earn our free meal by breaking up fights between drunk a$$holes that feel the need impress their dates (the owners know that we understand why they offer that special). The funny thing is, alcohol is a downer. Just imagine what it would be like, if instead of a long island ice-tea these idiots had a hit of cocaine or crack; all in the name of having fun and blowing off some steam.

I stole my first cigarette from my grandfather when I was approximately 8 years old. I lit that baby up and took the biggest pull. I believe my throat burned far at least 1hour and I coughed for about 2hours. That was my last cigarette. I stole my first shot of rum from my father's abandoned glass when I was 5 or 6 yrs old. That burn like hell also, however, I've tried that again.
If drugs became legal people will have them in their homes. You may keep yours locked up, but the parents of your child's best friend may not. And there is always the older cousin or friend that is willing to buy for the under-aged (it makes them cool). A lot of kids like me, had there first drink in a safe and secure place (their home or a friends home). Luckly for me tabacco and alcohol are not highly addictive. I would have hated to be an alcoholic before I had hair on my ......
Two of my buddies who were cops in local school districts said the #1 type of drug they would take off of kids were "legal"prescription drugs.
No good can come from making drugs legal.

Talked with your kids lately?
 

Talked with your kids lately?

Drugs can be found right now in the nicest schools and at the homes of some of the nicest parents - even though it's illegal.

Yes. I see him almost every morning before he leaves for school and I'm there every afternoon he gets home from school. Being there (to talk) for him is the reason I work the night shift. I get your point, but I don't believe good parenting would fix the problems legalizing drugs would bring about.
If something has the potential to be abused, humans will abuse it. Making it more accessible is simply going to lead to more abuse. We only need to look at our current economy for an example (credit abuse). The innocent (tax payers) are now going to pay the price. If drugs are leagalized, soon after we will be setting aside bail out money to help idiots recover.
Again, my only point is this.... if drugs are made legal a lot of innocent people will get hurt. I can see job security for me, but I'll be afraid for the wife and child. About two months ago I helped out with a scene where a 28 year old doctor was shot twice in the back and once in the neck by a "functional" drug addict. The addict may not be a violent person, but drugs can make you do some stupid sh#t.
Why would anyone want to live in a world with more crackheads is beyond me.

Sir, we live in that world now, whoever wants drugs gets them.

As it is now the narco-terrorists and cartels are getting rich beyond reason and this is feeding a criminal network that we can not defeat.

When I first took the bench, in a very rural county, I was arraigning 4-5 people per week who were "tweaking"(under the influence of meth) while I was informing them of the charges against them. I estimate that close to 1/3 of the families in the county were harmed by methamphetamine in some form or fashion. Luckily, the law putting pseudoephedrine greatly reduced that number.
When we talk about "legalizing drugs", we need to understand the distinction of the effect of each drug we discuss. For example, if a person's normal seratonin level is zero, at the moment of sexual climax it would be 50. Now, a person on cocaine achieves a seratonin level of 300. Want to guess what the level is for a person on meth? 1000. Stated differently, a person who gets high on meth for the first time feels 1000 times better than his/her first sexual climax.
These seratonin levels are of immense importance when discussing legalization. Legalizing tobacco and alcohol, no doubt chemicals that cause harm to the human body, gives easy access by the citizenry to substances that cause addiction over a (somewhat) long period of time. On the contrary, methamphetamine, for all intents and purposes, causes an addict at first use. And why not? Hell, the user feels 1000x better than the best orgasm he/she ever had. Of course, everybody has enough knowledge of drug addicts to realize the hazards upon the occurance of such addiction.
While I heartily concur that the war on drugs has not went well, I cannot agree with the proposition that we should legalize drugs. Meth, coke, heroin, etc, being available for sale on a store shelf, is simply more than this country, or its citizens, can handle. I would hate to guess how many children I have put into foster care, terminated parental rights, etc., because the parents are addicts. What would that number be if crackhead mom and dad could just run to the local pharmacy to buy drugs, instead of having to find a pusher somewhere on the bad side of town? Moreover, while we say that addicts should have to fend for themselves vis-a-vis medical care, the reality is that those folks will go into emergency rooms, and will be given medical treatment at taxpayer expense.
I further agree that the war on drugs has been expensive. However, as our country ages, I suggest that we really examine what we want to spend our tax money on. As we all know, within the last year, the federal government has spent a lot of money on TARP, bailouts, and is looking to spend even more money on health care. Maybe the old idea of a government that merely kept its citizenry safe and just, as well as promoting commerce was a better idea. Imagine where the drug war would be if just 10% of the federal paychecks now sent to DC bureaucrats were instead paid to narcotics agents. No doubt the drug war would still go on, but we would have something to show for our tax money expenditures. But, my conservatism rant will have to wait.
craigiepooh

I have been exposed to the anti-drug campaign almost all my life and this is the first time I ever actually was told what the big deal about "high" is. Still glad I don't do that crap, but can now see why some do. Great post, Your Honor.

Actually - 20 times better - unless you're using the same charts I think Congress uses in determining what we can or cannot afford as a nation - but however you figure it, meth is still a hell of a boost. However, I think I'll just stick with sex. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

it's not just about US
 

Eeban Barlow makes the point that the cartels have expanded to east Africa. (Sort of a reverse "Middle Passage" from the triangular slave trade route.) While the US gorges itself on substances and debates non-sensical internal policies, the narcos and the Ts are daring and adaptive as they expand their capabilities and their reach. Cunning, lethal global guerrillas right out our back door.

"The west coast of Africa is increasingly becoming a hub for the illegal drugs trade and trafficking from especially South America. What was once known as the Gold Coast is rapidly becoming known the Coke Coast. If no action is taken, this volatile area may soon become a focal point from which not only increased drug trafficking is launched into Europe, but very possibly narco-terrorism. But, the longer this serious issue is ignored, the more time the narco-terrorists are given to entrench themselves and their followers, build their networks and wreak havoc. But this volatile area in Africa is also starting to produce its own drugs – the implications can be imagined. Likewise, East Africa is also becoming a hub for narco-terrorism.

Despite the noises made about narco-terrorism, it is unlikely that much real effort will go into stopping this very lucrative and dangerous criminal endeavour. Where efforts are made, they fall far short of denting the narco networks. Throwing money at a problem will not make it go away. Only a decent aggressive strategy will do that."

http://eebenbarlowsmilitaryandsecuri...e-stopped.html

I agree that it would be very hard to ever sell the American public on legalizing heroin, meth, PCP, cocaine (crack) and whatever new drug is just getting started. It sends a worse message than assisted suicide for the terminally ill IMHO. But what are the alternatives in avoiding the trade benefiting organized crime?

The result of our "War on Drugs" has been an increase of supply and profit made on the poison. I think there will always be people willing to risk the death penalty to make quick money supplying for the demand.

Has anyone but the taliban been able to stop the drug trade in "their" area? Maybe the Chinese who executed addicts when they became over whelmed by opium?

I also think that it becomes a great deal harder for LE to follow the money trail, than the drug trail, but I'm no Narcotics LE Professional. Makes sense that drug dealers would be big campaign contributors for conservative reps - not to mention institutions that "wash" the money. Hell, how many LE and Prison Guards would be out of a job if we just sent junkies to the often revolving door of rehab?

Ted Kennedy will have his sixth month of sobriety this Feb. 25, 2010. :)

Switzerland started a pretty liberal drug policy in 1990 and seems to have had pretty good success with it.

1 article here explains some of it: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/44417.php

Otherwise just google it, pretty interesting stuff.

edit: And btw, i quite firmly believe that most drug users are not drug addicts (pretty big difference...) though actual statistics on this would ofcourse not be possible to attain without legalizing it

It might be useful in your research to study the mechanisms of addiction.

I would like to medically monitor anyone that has used maryjane or anything for a long time, even in light dosages, and not be addicted. That would be one for the record books.

The old,old addage, " I can stop...( enter substance used ) anytime I want, I just don't want to stop", should be a major clue.:D

I'm not researching anything, its just my opinion based on my experiences.

What i mean is that the majority of users do not overuse it or use it often.
They just try stuff every now and then and its pretty much harmless, but there is still so many who starts off like that and then do it more and more often, and becomes addicted.

It's what i think, i've seen alot of other weird opinions posted in this thread and i felt like posting my own to try and show the problem from a different perspective;)

Do you think you know enough addicts to make that kind of statistical analysis of them as a group?

TR

No, i know several non-addicts though.
People who use drugs on special occasions to get that sick ride once in a while but can still go months without using anything.

I dont know how it is in US but in Europe there are several large trance/techno festivals, Q-base and Sensation white being among the bigger ones (afaik?) and the drug usage here is quite extensive.
You can probably argue that many of these are addicts but i'm also quite certain that many save drug usage for occasions such as these.

Edit: To simplify my opinion a bit, I think its wrong to assume anyone who uses drugs (in a casual maner or however you can say it...) is a drug addict.
I know i sometimes go a bit far, but i like a good argument, and they do need to be started:munchin

How do you know that?

IMHO, there are few, if any casual (non-addicted) users of heroin, opium, codiene (natural or synthetic), cocaine, or amphetimines.

TR

Being able to take it or leave it is an argument I have heard several recovering addicts relate as their feeling while their addiction was developing. The illusion that they are "in control", that they can stop using or disregard the use of drugs any time they choose. The tragedy for them comes when they can no longer leave it alone. The addicted people I have met who are recovering didn't start out with their use of drugs or alcohol saying that they were going to become addicts. That's the humanity of the disease that makes it a tragedy, IMO.

"Things are tough all over"
 

LarryW--

Well said.

I would add that we should not forget the impact that even "casual" use of "recreational" drugs can have on the life of the user, his/her family, and friends.

It doesn't take a glass pipe or a syringe to send a father to an early grave, or to see him joined decades later by a life long friend, and then by his older brother. (Although a pipe did play a significant role with the last.)

It can be as simple as an empty cigar box, some rolling papers, and a "harmless" green herb, along with cans of beer, badly mixed sangria, a small spoon, and a short vial.

From there, it is a blur of missed appointments, unkept promises, watching a star crossed marriage capsize, a badly understocked pantry, fending for oneself, vital life lessons going untaught, bad habits being imitated, seemingly endless hours alone. An attempted homicide. The life of a latch-key kid.

Then there's the night before Thanksgiving. The national network news broadcasts have not yet ritualized the counting of days that Americans have been held hostages in Iran. The phone rings endlessly until one awakes from a troubled sleep, knowing what the call means before the receiver is picked up.

The voice on the other side asks "Is your father home?" One prays quickly, silently, vainly, while opening a door to find a room with a made bed. One picks up the phone, answers the question, "No" and is told "I'll be right over."

A moment later, a lifetime later, one learns that what was feared is what is true now and forever. The answer to the second question of the evening--"Do you want to be alone?"--is the same as the answer to the first question. "No."

In my opinion, the fact that the state cannot legislate morality does not mean that the state should legislate chaos.

Just my $0.02.

Would it be accurate to say that EVERY addict started out with the thought they could "take it or leave it"? I wonder how many meth, heroin or cocaine addicts NEVER smoked marijuana?

Just an opinion, but I would think taking that first drug, of any type, is more likely to lead to addiction than taking that first drink, smoking that first cigarette or playing that first slot machine.

Of all the addictions out there, which leads to the most crime, most health problems, most family relationship problems, most job problems, most loss of personal control? I don't really kinow. But what I do know is, in the families I know,...drug addiction is the worst! Suicide, homicide, property crimes and just plain family despair.

I think it is a pathetic cop-out to consider drug legalization.

My .02

I'm not saying drugs are good in any way, but to get addicted you need to use them more then is "safe" for your body and mind.
Most people are in my opinion are able to recognise this line and stay a healthy distance away from it, yet so many succumb to it and become addicts.
So upto the point where a person actually is addicted, which is probably alot earlier then when he becomes aware of it, he will still have made conscious decisions to take drugs and increase the amount of drugs hes taking, neglecting the fact that hes going to far with it.

So in my opinion for each addict saying he once was in control, i think there are several more who stays in control.
How often a person uses drugs i think is also very related to his social circles and wether his friends will tell him to get a fucking grip if they feel he's slipping or if they will just feed him more.

As for knowing all this, i can't really know much without having done extensive research,
But suppose i hang out in some social circles where drugs are more or less accepted but not used much.
I'm not saying i use drugs here, but i know for a fact its possible to go for years and use drugs on occasions and not become addicted.

This all being said it's also important to recognise the differences in drugs, some are alot more addictive then others.
And once you cross the line and start injecting drugs into your body you're pretty much there already...


Hope I haven't derailed the thread to much here:confused:

Think i was wrong in my earlier asumption that there isn't any statistics on this.
I came across this: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus08.pdf#066

I may have misread some statistics here so correct me if im wrong.

This document claims that about 20% of everyone beetween 18-25 years in the US has tried an illegal drug, 16% of these having done marijuana.
And as you can see the use is down to 11% with people 26-34 years of age.
After that its 5% for people 35 years and above.

I dont think you have that many addicts in your country.

So where is the compromise that will prevent drug lords/drug dealers from getting richer/more dangerous while also keeping drugs like cocaine/meth illegal?

I hear a lot of talk about people becoming addicts, and that number being even higher if these drugs were legalized. I live in a very remote location in the US and I know drugs are being sold illegally here. Just the other day a few kids got stopped leaving a local school early, and school security found a gallon ziploc bag full of weed in the car. These are kids in a very small town in possession of a relatively harmless (in comparison to the more addictive), yet illegal, drug. If they're already living a destructive lifestyle and smoking/selling pot at their age, I think the odds of them moving on to something like meth eventually are very good.

As for the more addictive drugs, I've seen them here on the reservation as well. I recently had a run-in with a couple of locals that decided to threaten me because I was about to go for a run. Apparently a white guy running on "Navajo Land", as they put it, could be shot for trespassing. Both of them were drunk at the least, while one definitely looked like a meth addict to boot. (On an aside, they also chose to have this conversation with me while their kids were in the car. Talk about good role models!) And drugs aren't new to the rez, as I witnessed kids my age taking cocaine while I was in high school. That was about 15 years ago.

It is obvious to me that those who want to take drugs will always find a way to get them, and drug dealers will always be pushing their illegal drugs on the ignorant/naive among us. I personally have no interest in taking cocaine/meth, and I definitely don't want my children taking them. I don't know if the odds of my kids taking cocaine/meth would increase if it were legalized, but I do know that if it were legalized and controlled, they wouldn't have access to them until they were old enough to legally purchase them, and hopefully by then they'd be smart enough to know what the risks are and choose not to take them.

We can't protect everyone from themselves, but we can take the rug right from under the feet of the drug lords by doing more about the drug situation. Maybe legalizing these drugs isn't the best answer, but I really haven't heard of a better option, just moral/ethical disapproval.

This thread began with a discussion re: drug lords murdering the children and families of some LEOs killed in the line of duty in Mexico. In my heart I have such disdain for that behavior that it pales the discussion re: illegal drug use.

IMO, behavior that is victimless has been the argument for years re: the legalization of drugs. Drugs are not in and of themselves harmless. They have potential for great harm to people and to society. Drug manufacturing and distribution cannot IMO be considered victimless behavior, never mind whether it's legal or not. As for addressing the drug lords who make millions without regard for any of their clientele, and junkies who commit felonies to get the money to buy drugs, I am more hawkish on the matter.

Addiction is not defined by the number of days, hours, or minutes between usages.

What do you consider to be an acceptable number of addicts in a society, and would that number be higher or lower if usage were legalized?

Just because we are not doing as well in the war as we had hoped does not mean we are going to give up.

TR

Yeah, we're funding both sides like we do with foreign aid to Af, Pak, etc. that gets ciphoned off by corrupt foreign officials or paid directly to fixers.

Cartels would not command massive resources if we didn't hand over dollars.

Recalibrating Drug Laws Based On Science

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...1.24ff49c.html

Richard

Fusion of Crime and Terrorist Organizations
 

The Congressional Research Service just issued a report on the convergence of criminal syndicates and terrorist groups. The report mentions one Mexican cartel influenced by religious extremism (not Islam), but not much on the narcos in LATAM.

"Over time, a purely criminal group may transform, adopting political goals and new operational objectives. These organizations can form alliances with existing terrorist organizations or foreign governments to help achieve their strategic aspirations. Or they can initiate, direct, and perpetrate terrorist attacks without external assistance, resulting in the group becoming labeled a terrorist organization. Criminal syndicates often already possess the operational expertise needed to engage in terrorist acts. They may already employ terrorist specialists to conduct surveillance, transfer money, purchase weapons, build bombs, and eliminate rivals. A criminal organization can easily transfer this apparatus toward politically motivated ends. The result is either a truly evolved criminal-turned-terrorist group or a 'fused' criminal-terrorist organization that seeks to develop ties with like-minded ideological movements. The use of criminal skills for terrorist ends raises the concern among some experts that terrorists may seek out criminals for recruitment or radicalization, believing them to be a higher skilled partner than non-criminals. A criminal’s participation in terrorist activity, however, brings greater scrutiny from law enforcement agencies and politicians.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat...eda_and_th.php

KHAT!
 

Interesting controversy over fact-based research in the UK.

No. 1 on the experts' list was an easy call: heroin. It's extremely addictive and, by any measure, destructive to the user and the society around him. Cocaine came in second, followed by barbiturates and street methadone.

Then the list got interesting. Alcohol, which has always been legal in England and was only briefly outlawed in the United States, took the fifth position, above tobacco (9), marijuana (11), LSD (14) and ecstasy (18). The least harmful drug in all respects was khat, a stimulant derived from the leaves of an African shrub.

Planting the Seed for Legal Pot
 

Planting the Seed for Legal Pot

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/polit...-81222877.html

".........The bill, authored by San Francisco Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, would essentially treat pot the same way alcohol is treated under the law and would allow adults over 21 to possess, smoke and grow marijuana.

The law would also call for a fee of $50 per ounce sold and would help fund drug eradication and awareness programs. It could help pull California out of debt, supporters say, raising up to $990 million from the fees........"

The state/feds are having a had time finding growers right now. Make it legal to grow and the state will find a hard time collecting the $50 per oz fee. If it passes look for every house to have a few plants out back.

I'd move back to CA just to grow pot out my back door. :D

The big money's probably in hard drugs and synthetics, but it's a start. States could license marijuana stores like some have licensed liquor stores. Cartels wouldn't have a chance against Wal-Mart.

cartel slice's off a man's face and stitches it to a soccer ball
 

we can't legalize too soon . . .

"Mexico's drug war reached new levels of brutality at the weekend when a gang member was killed and cut into seven pieces as a warning to members of a cartel.
To drive home the point, the victim's face was sliced off and stitched on to a football.

"Hugo Hernandez, 36, was taken to Sinaloa after being kidnapped on January 2 in neighbouring Sonora state, in an area known for marijuana growing. His torso was found in a plastic container on the streets of Los Mochis; elsewhere another box contained his arms, legs and skull . . . "

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...#ixzz0cRWXyMQm

If the drug problems are to be mitigated, the economic benefits of trafficking have to be reduced.

Step 1: Don't interdict. Let the traffickers spread around as much as they want.
Step 2: Go after the end user. Make it a "traffic ticket" with steep fines.

Supply up + demand down will lower price to where there's no significant criminal profit.
If the consequences of being a user are made worse, more will seek help or avoid using in the first place.


The end users have less ability to thwart LE efforts.
Go after the soft target.
It sounds cruel, but it would work.

Why bother? Seriously?

Just tax it to a fare-thee-well. It works for alcohol. It works for cigarettes. And frankly, I like the idea of letting users pay a tax so my own taxes stay low. :cool: