In the country I live in the government isn't supposed to be a business. Even though they basically are. No way should only the government be allowed to sell drugs. Sure...I trust the FDA. Right. I'd trust the local grower 100 times more I think. All drug laws really do is drive up the price and fund gangs anyways. Throw them in jail? Another kid without a dad. Not that a crack-addicted dad is good. But if he's not a felon too, he can reform a lot easier. Drugs illegal? At least 10% of high school kids today admit trying inhalants. Locked liquor cabinet or not, a person can get high on petroleum. Drugs are bad. Addiction destroys FAMILIES. It is a horrible DISEASE. Not a choice. Prison isn't a deterrent though. Never was. No one thinks they'll get caught. Education and treatment are the way for non-violent offenders.

Ferdinand : You might like the Portugal way then. All drugs under a certain quantity would at most yield a fine, and addiction is treated as a health problem rather than a crime.

You also pinpoint the core of the problem: making something illegal does NOT make demand disappear. Milton Friedman, a famous economist opposed to the War on Drugs, was old enough to remember Prohibition and said that alcohol was still plenty. All that Prohibition did was to criminalize a vice, which only profited organized crime and government.

janus : How can you be assured that a private corporation will not lead to a monopoly? Many of our communication companies are virtual monopolies through mergers and buyouts. Microsoft got hit with a monopoly case at least once!

janus : My point is exactly anti to an excuse. If drugs were made legal for all of America, consider how much more stupid people will be on the road. The fact the pill you speak of may be a significant factor to the crazy drivers.

janus : It would depend on the quantity I guess. I really don't like when the USA gets compared to countries with populations of it's largest city. There are surely vast differences in how such ideas may be implemented. In the US, I fear that it's just a matter of economics. It's far cheaper to put addicts in jail than to treat them. At least in the short term. And there probably aren't nearly enough treatment options or effective programs and counselors. I smell another black hole swallowing up every public dollar it could consume. Such is the way that good gets corrupted these days. Good intentions are seized upon by the state and corrupted in the name of progress(control).

NameEntry : Never, ever has a private monopoly ever existed 1) without the help of government (utilities) and 2) that acted as such (decreased supply to increase prices). Standard Oil made real prices decrease sharply, and so has Microsoft. Sure, Internet Explorer was bundled, but the overall price was much lower. The ONLY way a monopoly can for is through barriers to entry. Same thing for the drug market: are there monopolies in Colorado?

Ferdinand : I was thinking more about state-level solutions (since the War on Drugs as such is unconstitutional with respect to the 10th amendment). And I disagree about the jailing; once they are out they still have a huge stain on their file, making it nearly impossible to get a job, and for what? Using an arbitrarily illegal plant?

And I am not exactly calling for state-sponsored recovery; THAT would indeed become a bottomless pit. Instead, why not let private solutions emerge as is the case for tobacco?

I think the world would be much better if you government had better control over them. Too many people have access to them.

janus : Speaking of jobs. Think of all the jobs the prison system supports. j/k It's a nice idea. But so many addicts just refuse help.  I think it may be next to impossible to implement. You could have more aggressive rehab programs in jail. But a crackhead is going to smoke crack until they can't get it almost every time. When they run out of cash, they steal. That's got to be a crime. Hey, that's a rhyme.

Ferdinand : actually, Friedman says that crack is a by-product of the war on drugs. Since people could not get the "closest" real thing (cocaine), then they started mixing with baking soda (sodium bicarbonate? I know nothing about drugs ). Same thing from crystal meth; had "the market" run its course it is highly unlikely this drug would have ever appeared.

Now, OF COURSE people might refuse treatment. But it is still no reason to criminalize the possession of these products. Albeit heavily regulated, alcohol and tobacco are legal; have addiction problems gone up since the end of Prohibition? Besides governments can NOT protect us from our selves, lest we be in an 1984-like society with and actual Big Brother that can see us.

Finally, there are NO rational reason to make ANY drug illegal that could not apply to alcohol or tobacco.

You know "Drugs" is kinda a subjective term to a certain extent. I mean a lot of times the prescription drugs that your doctor is giving you can be worse for you than a lot of these "drugs" people are talking about and in some circumstances just as much, if not more addicting.

Also, alcohol is pretty damaging to your body are you including that as a "drug"?

There's already a lot of crazy people on the roads no matter what the situation is. I think in reality people just need to think about this stuff a little differently. Throwing these people in jail to rot int he system and cost taxpayers huge amounts of money is not the answer.

Jordanv78 : Yes, the term has become rather subjective and meaning "illegal substance." That is how language works: some meanings get more influence than others. But we agree on the futility of jailing non-violent drug offenders. It is a good thing this administration relased many of them.

We need drugs to help ease pain and give many sick people a chance at a "normal" life.
Honestly, some of the drugs that are legal are terrible for the human body while some natural labeled drugs have less side effects yet are banned from public consumption.

I've looked into this dilemma in high school and college and the benefits from some of these illegal drugs are little to none compared to chemically made drugs currently legal.

Economy wise, a lot of money is directed towards "busting" drug dealers for minor drugs almost as much as for heroin and cocaine.
Personally, I think marihuana and certain fruits- yes fruits that are used in other countries to ease cancer patients of pain, should be legal.

Reason being, more money and human resources can be funnel towards crack, heroine etc. and yes I hate the thought of a child being that close to drugs but, they are regardless just takes more parenting and education. 

I say this from seeing family members become co-dependent of legal drugs made in labs with chemicals as opposed to those treated naturally.

jlove92 : This is the problem with the War on Drugs: ALL (arbitrarily) illegal substances are clumped together. IN THAT CASE ONLY then yes, pot can be a gateway drug since it is usually sold with other more dangerous drugs. However, treating dependence as a crime is not the answer.

My thoughts:

Cigarettes, cigars, e-cigs, and whatever is already legal should stay legal.

Marijuana should also be legal, as it doesn't absolutely ruin you like heroin or crack.

Heroin, crack, meth, cocaine, Angel Dust, etc. shouldn't be legal because they're extremely bad for you.

LSD should be legal, because then that means they are government regulated. LSD has killed people, but only from extreme overdose (rarer of the two) or the LSD being laced with something (more common of the two). If it's regulated by the government, that means LSD can't be laced with anything else because you won't be getting it from shady people at the bus stop corner.

TheFadedWarrior : Then why not apply the same logic to the drugs you want to see banned? Besides it IS precisely the War on Drugs that makes them so potent: people get penalized based on quantity rather than "quality." This is what helped increase the strength of alcohol during Prohibition, and also of pot. I heard that it is now like, 100 times stronger than when my parents were teens (mid 70s).

Also, the "extremely bad for you" argument was the one used to enact Prohibition. It instantly tranformed otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals for merely wanting to do something with their bodies that "society" did not approve of. Of COURSE alcoholism is a problem; but punish EVERYONE for the vices of a few makes no sense.

janus : Because regulating all those drugs I think should be illegal would either still keep them very bad, or completely change them by cleaning them and making them pretty much an entirely new substance (in which case people would still sell all those drugs non-regulated because the legal versions aren't as potent).

What do I think about drugs..well this could get interesting. Well for starters the only illegal drug I've ever used and plan on using is Marijuana, I like the TCH concentrate it gives me a tingling sensation and mellows me out personally I think it should be legal, because marijuana isn't something that has to be cooked up by some chemist or manufactured or chemically altered..it's a plant a harmless plant, it just so happens if you catch this plant on fire and inhale the smoke that arises you get a pretty mellow kick ass high but marijuana is the only illegal drug I would consider legalizing. I think Cociane, Crack, crystal meth,heroine should NEVER be legal under any circumstances , even with marijuana I think it should only be sold to persons 18+ but ultimately you know the only reason why illegal drugs aren't legal is because the government can't regulate distribution, price or turn a profit from it. This is all I really have to say on the matter at this time.

Honestly, through transitive property of things (since alcohol and tobacco are legal), I believe that, logically, other substances should technically be legal.

I personally believe that most drugs, however, should be banned. Even if they do give immediate pleasure, the later risks/drawbacks are not worth it in the slightest. However, banning them doesn't necessarily keep those who want a substance from getting it. It's the same way that, even though I'm a pacifist, I am against gun restriction laws. Criminals will get them whether they're banned or not, so what does it matter to ban them from the normal citizen?

Wow I'm surprised that I haven't posted in this thread. Drugs...I think about alcohol, cigarettes and misused drugs that people use in their body, that won't be good for them and their health as well. A lot of these drugs people get addicted too because some tragedy happened in their life. Or someone made them to take them to be part of a group or something. Things like that happen and it morley involves young people these days and that's how their life come crashing down when meeting this. On the other hand. Drugs can be used for medications. People will need to use it when the doctor tells them too as they will say how it will help them in a way. And not to use it unnecessarily. Drugs nowadays are being misused in a very bad way and it is really sad to see this as it is the truth on so many levels. '-'

No offense, but if drugs were made legal, they would be a waste of money and resources. If anyone can understand that sentence, kudos.

Anyway, I guess even IF drugs were made legal, they should have some kind of strict rule. Like WAY stricter than what we have now. Education should be vamped up a bit to include Drug-Ed.