I am convinced, now more than ever, EVERY drug should be legal

[Taverner]

And not necessarily regulated.

OK - the "War on Drugs", it's been going on for over 30 years now, and the drug problem has been rising faster during the war, than it did before. What has it netted us? Thousands of non-violent offenders (users) in jail, some with life sentences (see mandatory minimums) and many of them learning to be violent offenders by the time they get out.

Even Meth, Heroin, etc..."the bad drugs" - face it, we cannot stop them. We can't slow them. We can't even keep things flat. Making them illegal does nothing. More enforcement does nothing. For every meth lab that gets shut down, 3 more pop up in its place.

And the real heart of this issue, is that Drug Laws are plain out anti-American, and that's why they fail. To tell an individual what they can or cannot put into their body is ludicrous. And it will never work.

[bif]

1. Yep, I agree

Legalize all of them. It sure would save the government a ton of money.

[bif]

7. I would regulate them

But I know several people who've done time for posessing pot.

[philosophie_en_rose]

2. I strongly disagree.

Not because people shouldn't be able to put what they want in their bodies, but for

1) consumer protection - the legal drug industry ought to be regulated heavily. (do you trust the pharmaceutical industry to manufacture safe drugs without regulation?) And, if these drugs are held to standards, I don't see why recreational drugs should get a free pass.

2) environmental protection - meth hurts more than the drug user. It is a crime against the community to build the equivalent of a bomb in your house. The fumes are toxic to everyone, but especially children and pets. The chemicals leach into the ground and taint water supplies (which happened in my hometown). I don't think that people should be free to dump whatever they like whereever they like, so I don't see how illegal drug dealers should get a free pass.

3) social welfare - drugs are an addiction, but making drugs legal gives a free pass to politicians to cancel already meager drug treatment programs. the first step is admitting that there is a problem.

4) political justice - I don't want my politicians in the pocket of "Big Crack," any more than I want them in the pockets of Big Tobacco. In addition, I don't support the abuses that happen during the manufacturing/ processing of most drugs. (Which are usually much more pernicious than some guy growing pot with a heat lamp in his closet).

I certainly don't think all currently-illegal drugs are the same. Marijuana is not the same as meth, environmentally speaking. But I don't think that removing restrictions will change anything. To the contrary, it would create many additional (and worse) problems.

[Taverner]

3. All of that would make sense if...

We could actually do something about drug abuse, or the meth labs.

However, we can't. 30 years of the Drug War has done NOTHING. Numbers aren't going down. People are doing more drugs than ever. And we cannot stop them.

It's a lot like those wars we go into without an exit strategy.

[philosophie_en_rose]

5. How would legalizing drugs do anything but add to the problem?

It would be like looking at Iraq, and claiming that - because Bush is incompetent - all illegal wars should now be legal. :shrug:

Or that - because rape as a general crime has not been eradicated and rapists are not curable - that rape is now suddenly okay.

[anarch]

6. legalization does not mean a total lack of regulation

Look at the alcohol industry. Alcohol is truly bad for you, but prohibition didn't stop people from driniking, it just gave rise to organized crime. Repealing prohibition did not add to the problem.

The thing is, with laws that restrict personal lifestyle choices (and let's not bring in strawman arguments about rape or murder or aggressive wars...not the same thing at all), people are going to flout them, and whenever there is a black market, there is liable to be violence. The amount of alcohol-trade related violence dropped pretty dramatically after prohibition ended, as did, I suspect, the number of people going blind or whatever from unregulated, home-made booze.

The "war on drugs" is a sham...it's nothing but an excuse to lock up the poor and non-white.

[philosophie_en_rose]

10. First, it's not a strawman; Second, I didn't bring it up.

I was responding to the idea that one should legalize something, just because the administrators of the counter-movement are incompetent or ineffective. Taverner brought up war. And the analogy stands. Just because something is not working does not mean that the acts behind it are suddenly okay.

I agree that the effects of the "War on Drugs" are largely racist and ineffectual. But legitimizing recreational drugs would 1) not solve drug addiction, 2) legitimize those that prey upon vulnerable people, and 3) create a host of other issues that I brought up in my original post.

You admit that regulation would be needed, but why? Under your analysis, there will always be people attracted to the forbidden.

Legalization simply creates another type of mafia. It removes consumer protections, because it is a simple fact that most illegal drugs are not fit for human consumption in any way.

Alcohol is not the same as meth. Meth creates brain damage on the very first use. I have personally seen brain scans of meth users. I have personally witnessed many people with acid leeching through their skin, due to meth use. If alcohol burned holes in the brain, it shouldn't be sold either.

[anarch]

11. I think you're mis-interpreting the "war" analogy

We should not abandon the concept of "pre-emptive war" because it isn't effective, or because our administration is incompetent, but because it is prima facie unjust. So is the arbitrary declaration that certain naturally occurring substances should be banned, and the not-quite-so-arbitrary incarceration of certain groups in staggering numbers based on these unjust restrictions.

As for your other points: okay, I see what you are saying as far as drug addiction being a serious problem, but what we need is a strategy to deal with the real issues...the problem is that the way things are set up now, there is no "war on drugs", which would need a medical strategy, but a war on drug users. Imagine if even a tenth of the money spent on drug law enforcement was re-allocated to treatment programs.

I think there are some good aspects to regulation...things that are actually effective in protecting consumers and the environment, and so on. My whole point in mentioning regulation is to point out that there could be consumer protections without this draconian "smoke a joint, go to jail" attitude. Also, I think dishonest drug dealers should be punished...most harshly. Whether anything that people ingest/smoke/insufflate/inject or whatever is fit for human consumption is, I think, a matter of opinion. For instance, I think milk is disgusting and not fit to drink, but I wouldn't send anyone to jail for drinking it.

And I absolutely agree that meth is a horrible thing, and I've seen the damage firsthand too. But I've also seen people locked up for it who absolutely did not deserve it, and the damage done to them and their families by the stupid drug laws was much worse than anything the meth ever did to them. I suppose you could argue that locking them up got them off the meth...for a while anyway...but the price of this small and very temporary victory over addiction is way too high, if you ask me.

And I still maintain that prohibition laws are an entirely different animal than laws that are legitimately there to protect people, like laws against violent crimes.

Anyway, that's all I'm going to say on the subject, ever again. Good day to you.

[Taverner]

37. Meth is bad for you - that is a given

But making it a banned substance - especially since it is so easy to create in a lab - is a dumb dumb idea.

Lots of dangerous substances are illegal, many which are more dangerous than meth. Want something that will give you amazing kicks? Try huffing glue. That's just as easy to buy as a bottle of Thunderbird.

If you want to stop a problem, you have to find out why first. Going after users and pushers is merely pruning the drug problem. Do so and it comes back even stronger. Look for the roots and fix the problem there and you might have a chance.

Even still, if people want to get bombed, they will find a way to do so.

[Threedifferentones]

29. Its not necessarily the fact that many drugs are illegal

that make our laws about them so terrible. I recently read in the Wall Street Journal that in the 20 years between 1981 and 2001, drug offenders went from 5% of the population to 50% or more. Because of this our country now has the largest prison population in the world, despite the fact that our drug abuse rates are still similar to countries with much less aggressive enforcment.

Studies also have shown that, while rates of drug abuse are about constant in all economic groups, people in the poorest bracket are many times more likely to be imprisoned for their use. This is partly because wealthier people are more able to afford legal drugs through their doctors, and mostly because poorer sections of town feature more police and more aggressive enforcement, in general. So, our drug laws have the effect of imprisoning millions of poor people, who also happen to tend to be dark skinned. The fact that the American people spend billions and billions of dollars on this is sickinening to me, and in this sense eliminating some of our laws would help our society.

Nonetheless, drug addiction does often do tremendous damage to individuals and communities, which is why full legalization should perhaps be approached tentatively. I would say that there are certain drugs, such as crystal meth, which are simply so awful that their production should always be banned. However, if tobacco and alcohol are deemed acceptable, then there are many drugs which should also be legal, since they are no more dangerous. Chief among these in my mind is pot, but many perscription pills fall into the same category, and arguably even opium. Tobacco and alcohol really are pretty hardcore drugs, tobacco in terms of addiciton and long-term repercussions, and alcohol in terms of how quickly and powerfully it intoxicates. So, it seems to me that which drugs should be legal is something our society really needs to reevaluate.

[barb162]

15. excellent !

[jobycom]

19. Great post. Points out the over-simplification of drug decriminalization

I, too, believe that drug use should be largely decriminalized for most drugs (even if I think anyone who uses drugs recreationally is an idiot), but the OP has a simplistic view. Thanks for the great post.

[GirlinContempt]

33. Yeah, but see

the thing is, legalization would stop recreational drugs from being unregulated, and bring drug labs out of neighborhoods, and in fact make restrictions on the drugs themselves tighter. Once the government allows it, it can control it and regulate it. It's the fact that it's illegal and underground which makes most of your points issues.

Numbers 3 and 4 are conjecture and I don't think what you've said backs up your assertion that legalization would create additional problems. Bringing things out in the open is shown to reduce problems and allow controls, not the other way around.

[benEzra]

62. If cannabis were legal, and you could buy opiates at the drugstore,

Not because people shouldn't be able to put what they want in their bodies, but for

1) consumer protection - the legal drug industry ought to be regulated heavily. (do you trust the pharmaceutical industry to manufacture safe drugs without regulation?) And, if these drugs are held to standards, I don't see why recreational drugs should get a free pass.

2) environmental protection - meth hurts more than the drug user. It is a crime against the community to build the equivalent of a bomb in your house. The fumes are toxic to everyone, but especially children and pets. The chemicals leach into the ground and taint water supplies (which happened in my hometown). I don't think that people should be free to dump whatever they like whereever they like, so I don't see how illegal drug dealers should get a free pass.

3) social welfare - drugs are an addiction, but making drugs legal gives a free pass to politicians to cancel already meager drug treatment programs. the first step is admitting that there is a problem.

4) political justice - I don't want my politicians in the pocket of "Big Crack," any more than I want them in the pockets of Big Tobacco. In addition, I don't support the abuses that happen during the manufacturing/ processing of most drugs. (Which are usually much more pernicious than some guy growing pot with a heat lamp in his closet).

I certainly don't think all currently-illegal drugs are the same. Marijuana is not the same as meth, environmentally speaking. But I don't think that removing restrictions will change anything. To the contrary, it would create many additional (and worse) problems.

If cannabis were legal, and you could buy opiates at the drugstore, do you think people would still be making meth in hotel rooms? They couldn't compete on a cost basis, and they'd be driven out of business. Just like the legalization of alcohol pretty much put an end to making moonshine in the woods using stills cobbled together from old car radiators; it's cheaper and safer to just buy a bottle of Jack Daniels from the store.

Personally, I think simply legalizing cannabinoids would cause most of the hard-drug problem to go away, even if the other drugs weren't legalized. Alcohol prohibition drove consumption toward more potent forms of alcohol, because for a given dose, whiskey was easier to smuggle and store than beer, and commanded a higher price. In the same way, cannabinoid prohibition drives the drug market toward drugs that are more potent for a given volume, that are easier to store and smuggle, and that command a higher price--namely, cocaine, crack, heroin, and meth.

[Deja Q]

4. The abusers get the worst treatment.

Even dealers are better off.

[Guy Fawkes]

8. More arrests for possession than for all violent crime combined.

I wish I could find the article... turns out there were more arrests in 2004 for possession than for ALL violent crimes combined (rape, murder, robbery, etc)

[Ohio Joe]

9. I kind of agree

I'm not sure legalizing the 'bad drugs' is such a good idea. I also though, don't think our current strategy for dealing with them is correct. Education, treatment and help for those addicted is how we should be fighting this 'war'.

[tk2kewl]

12. We can't even keeps drugs out of a controlled environment like a prison

what makes anyone think they can be kept off of the streets of a once-free country. it's a complete waste of resources to try

[4morewars]

13. How does one have a war on a substance?

The reality is that you don't.
What we have, instead, is a war on people.
Mostly poor people. Mostly people on the left. Most especially, people of color.

It is obvious that the way we deal with drugs in this country is not working, and will not start working anytime soon.
It almost looks as if our "leaders" wish it to fail.?

They certainly don't have the courage or wisdom to do anything other than "stay the course." Writing increasingly draconian laws and imposing harsher sentences, to prove that they are "tough on crime."

Apparently, yet again, war is not the answer.

:smoke:

[barb162]

14. We can put more money in education efforts. The demand side.

Sorry, but I don't want someone driving along side, behind ior in front of me on some illegal drug at 50 mph.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

16. Yeah, except we already have laws in place that make driving under the

influence illegal. They apply to alcohol and the "illegal" drugs. If they were legalized and controlled, they would still fall under those laws, much like the legal alcohol does.

Your argument doesn't hold much water, unless you think that prohibition of alcohol worked.

[barb162]

17. Enforcement should be a lot stronger and the penalties a lot

higher, like the ones in Europe. They really nail a person in Europe if they dare drive DUI.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

18. Fine, but that still has nothing to do with your argument as to why

drugs shouldn't be legalized.

[barb162]

20. What about the kids of drug users?

What about everyone else around the user spaced out on whatever? My point about driving and some user near me and crashing into me is a VERY good point. What about the user in a workplace possibly injuring someone else because he or she is spaced out. Sorry, but I think you have no rational arguments for it. Any time someone can injure me or others because of drug use, forget it.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

21. And all of those things are problems with alcohol as well.

If somebody has a drug or an alcohol problem, they should get treatment for it. Are you telling me that no one could hurt someone at work on alcohol? That kids of alcoholics don't get hurt? Should alcohol be illegal? If someone has an addiction, then they should recieve treatment for it. Throwing a non-violent drug offender in jail with violent criminals (and they have drugs in jail too) doesn't solve the problem. The money would be better spent giving them good treatment.

I think you have no rational arguments for it either, as none of your arguments so far don't also apply to alcohol, or abused prescription drugs, for that matter.

[Taverner]

22. Yep - exactly

The thing is prohibition does NOT work. Sending users away to jail even for the most dangerous drugs does nothing more than make them angry, hardened and ready to commit crimes. REAL crimes, not like injecting substance-D but like going into a liquor store, taking the money and killing the proprietors (because, well shucks, this would be the person's third strike...don't want any pesky witnesses around...)

If we really wanted to have a war on Drugs, we'd spend our resources on Detox programs, treatment centers and shelters for the families of those affected by users. It would cost far less, be much more effective and humane. And even that, the best solution, wouldn't change the reality that if people want to get bombed, they will.

[barb162]

23. Sorry, but when I others are injured through illegal drug use

their rights stop at my door. You have no arguments for it. We both agree on the education angle. And alcohol use when driving above a certain limit is illegal and should be kept illegal. Abuse of RX? Same story.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

27. The point is the same things can happen through legal drugs when abused.

It makes more sense to decriminalize all drugs and treat addiction like the disease it is, instead of busting somebody who is responsibily enjoying some weed or a couple lines in their house. If they neglect their kids, hurt someone at work, while driving et cetera, then prosecute that behavior, whether they did it on alcohol, xanax, or cocaine. Prosecuting the actual possession or use of drugs is a waste of time and money. It's honestly the same as deciding to arrest people for having a beer, because they may go and do something to harm others.

The drug war doesn't work. Plain and simple. It's a joke.

[barb162]

43. The drug war as it is is a joke. There is money applied only to

the supply side and not the demand side for starters. But I am not talking about pot here. I am talking about coke, meth, etc., not the soft stuff.

[barb162]

24. I noticed you didn't reply to the kids' issue. Who needs a meth

mommy and daddy? No kid I know.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

25. I did reply to the kids issue. Read it again.

Who needs an alcoholic mommy & daddy? Or a mommy & daddy addicted to oxycodone? Whether it's that or a currently illegal drug, it is still a horrible situation for the kids. The kids should be removed and the parents should be in rehab. It doesn't matter what the source of the neglect is, just that the kids are neglected. That is what needs to be addressed. Obviously, the drug war isn't working and I believe society would be better served by decriminalizing (which is different than legalizing, BTW) harder drugs. Give an addict treatment, regardless of what their addiction is. Jail does not effectively provide drug rehabilitation.

[Taverner]

36. If you're worried about meth kids...

Why not worry about Alkie Kids, or Nicotine Kids? Those drugs are dangerous as well, and yet there is no law "protecting" them.

Need I remind you about the first law of holes?

When you realize you're in a hole, stop digging.

The WoD is a hole.

[barb162]

39. Hey, children of alcoholics or meth or other addicts

get messed up. Why make even more drugs legal? And what in the world is WoD

[Taverner]

42. WoD is War on Drugs

Thing is it is going to grow in addiction at the same rate whether or not it's legal or not. Why kick these people when they're down?

[barb162]

46. People shouldn't be kicked; they should be in good drug rehab

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

48. Which would be more likely to happen if we treated addiction as a disease

not a crime. Prison is not rehabilitation. Prison is where they end up with our current legal system.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

54. Do some research into alcohol prohibition and how it affected the

alcoholism rates. I think it would make your point quite moot.

I'll make it easy and give you some stuff to start with. I highly recommend you read the first article in it's entirety.

Alcohol Prohibition and drug prohibition

One important way to evaluate the public health consequences of alcohol policies, then, is in terms of how they affect consumption. In 1932 Warburton pointed out that "except for the first three years, the per capita consumption of alcohol has been greater under prohibition than during the war period <1917-1919>, with high taxation and restricted production and sale" (260). Both prohibition and post-prohibition alcohol regulation kept overall consumption down compared with the decades prior to prohibition Indeed, post-prohibition regulatory policies kept alcohol use sufficiently low that it was not until the end of the 1960s, 35 years after repeal, that per capita alcohol consumption rose to the levels of 1915 (Levine and Reinarman, 1993, 1998). Whatever public health benefits prohibition achieved in terms of reducing consumption, alcohol regulation in the 1930s and early 1940s accomplished them as well. Further, this occurred despite the fact that the post-prohibition regulatory system had little or no public health focus, and despite the fact that the liquor industry (like most other U.S. industries) gained increasing influence over the agencies that were supposed to regulate it. In short, alcohol control worked almost as well as prohibition in limiting alcohol consumption, and more effectively than pre-prohibition policies.

History of Alcohol Prohibition

One of the great ironies of the prohibition era was the fact, noted by the Wickersham Commission, that women happily took to drink during the experimental decade, and, what is more, did so in public. As the counterpart of the WCTU, the Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform was founded, stating in its declaration of principles that Prohibition was "wrong in principle" and "disastrous in consequences in the hypocrisy, the corruption, the tragic loss of life and the appalling increase of crime which has attended the abortive attempt to enforce it" (Dobyns, 1940: 107).

Drinking at an earlier age was also noted, particularly during the first few years of Prohibition. The superintendents of eight state mental hospitals reported a larger percentage of young patients during Prohibition (1919-1926) than formerly. One of the hospitals noted: "During the past year (1926), an unusually large group of patients who are of high school age were admitted for alcoholic psychosis" (Brown, 1932:176).

In determining the age at which an alcoholic forms his drinking habit, it was noted: "The 1920-1923 group were younger than the other groups when the drink habit was formed" (Pollock, 1942: 113).

Alcohol Prohibition Was A Failure

Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending.

[barb162]

40. You seem to imply that if alcohol is legal, other drugs

should be? A lot of people can drink alcohol almost every day and never become alcoholics. It's not the same with meth, coke, etc.

[Left Is Write]

49. My daughter's former boyfriend said he was hooked...

the first time he did meth. The very.first.time.

I'll take his word for it.

[Ariana Celeste]

32. I lost my brother -and- my father because of alcoholism.

Separate occasions. I am the last person you would -ever- find arguing against whether or not alcohol should be legal.

Drugs are never going anywhere, and legal drugs hurt just as many people if not -more-.

edited to change alcohol to "alcoholism"

[Nye Bevan]

26. Pot should be legal, but not meth

Substances that can be enjoyed responsibly, without (in general) killing people, destroying peoples' health, and wrecking lives, should be legal.

Alcohol, nicotine and pot fall into this category.

Meth most certainly does not.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

28. I believe simple possession of harder drugs should be decriminalized.

It stops short of legalizing it. It gives the government the chance to still prosecute dealers, but it doesn't put users in jail. If the user is addicted, then they should be provided treatment.

[Nye Bevan]

30. Throwing first-time users in jail is a bad idea

However, I think its good that people caught using hard drugs can be forced to go to probation and to take regular drug tests. Decriminalization would take away this option.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

35. Probation and drug tests are a failed deterrent. Not a solution.

No simple drug user needs jail-time, first time or not. Rehabilitation does not occur in prison. Those who show themselves to be addicts, should recieve rehabilitation.

Decriminalization would not take away that option, by the way. In NJ, a DUI isn't considered a criminal offense, but people convicted of one can still be forced into treatment and recieve punishment for it.

[idgiehkt]

45. and rehab is cheaper than prison

I always have to throw this in on these threads.

[Fox Mulder]

34. That's the way I feel about this issue, too.

[jpgray]

31. Decriminalize simple possession, but protections are still needed

Because the war on drugs can't be "won" and isn't being "won" doesn't mean it hasn't had an effect. Its effects have been almost all negative, but saying it has done "nothing" is nonsense--the WoD has had a lot of impact on how controlled and illegal substances are distrubuted in this country. Also I fail to see the logic of "since Draconian and ill-reasoned regulation is not succeeding, a complete directionless free-for-all will succeed brilliantly!" Anyway, once the production and distribution of a substance become a serious risk to society at large rather than the individual purchasing the drug, regulation is needed.

[Left Is Write]

38. I disagree. I have lots of experience with a meth addict...

the one who eventually broke my daughter's heart.

Meth is ugly, ugly, ugly, ugly.

Unfortunately, I am not objective enough to debate it, so I'll leave that to others.

[Taverner]

44. I'm not saying meth use is a good thing

Far from it - my argument is just that treating addicts as criminals is not going to solve the problem.

[Left Is Write]

47. Legalizing meth would be a bad, bad idea.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

50. Decriminalizing meth use would be a good, good idea.

Throw the book at the meth cooks and provide REAL treatment to meth addicts, instead of giving them probation or jail time, which is shown to be ineffective at best.

[Left Is Write]

53. I can vouch for probation and jail doing nothing for the one I know...

He's been in treatment twice, both times admitting he had every intention of using again once he got out. He's been in jail. He's fled. He's been on probation, and he's jumped probation. He's created a living hell for himself and those around him.

But he doesn't just use - he also has been known to cook his own and to deal. How many meth dealers aren't users also? How do you separate the opportunist from the addict?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

55. Well, obviously dealing is another issue.

But I think that the average user shouldn't face jail time.

Several European countries (although I don't think Europe has the meth problem) deal with hardened addicts that traditional treatment doesn't work for, by actually giving them prescriptions for the drug (heroin usually). It's found to be quite effective. It keeps the addicts from engaging in other illegal activity to get their drugs and it actually has also been found to reduce the overall rates of use. It emphasizes the fact that addiction is a disease and that addicts are sick. Apparently, that's been somewhat of a deterrant.

[Left Is Write]

56. I just think meth is in a class by itself.

And it's horrible.

[bridgit]

58. it is, a whole other breed of cat...

x(

[Left Is Write]

59. I should also add...

that daughter's ex did not only do jail time for drugs, he has also done jail time for robbery, assault, and weapons possession. All of these are linked to his drug addiction.

I don't know what the answer is, and I'm obviously not objective about it, but our experiences are recent, and as my daughter is now 2000 miles away from the ex-boyfriend and living with her dad, I feel as if she barely dodged a bullet.

[bridgit]

60. it's ability to quickly strip people down into base elements is stunning..

[qnr]

41. Can we compromise? Legalize them, but criminalize drug Advertisements?

Just wondering....

[bridgit]

52. yeah, i've had quite enough of 'smiling bob' & that guy that throws...

the football through an old tire for some reason :shrug:

[bridgit]

51. that is a libertarian point of view, likely enter into a phase where...

many may well die due to being so damn happy to have access to their preferred addiction of the choice, or choices; but with a system of compassionate counseling and a proper view of how to handle an addiction responsibly...the pharmaceutical quality of the compounds would be worth the tax base they would then spawn so that on the whole, balanced & in time, an ocean of new sorrows not-with-standing :thumbsup:

[OnionPatch]

57. Free up our prison space for REAL criminals

That's one thing that really bugs me. Pot smokers in prison on mandatory sentences while rapists and molesters get early parole. :mad:

The the other thing is that drug laws are nanny laws. People should be free to do drugs if they want to as long as they don't hurt anyone else. To outlaw drugs just because a few people may abuse them is ridiculous and an insult to a "free" citizenry.

[WindRavenX]

61. End the war on drugs

A bowl a day keeps the doctor away :smoke: