Hmmm. This issue is pretty close to me for several reasons (that I don't need to articulate here). Lots of good points being made here.

From a purely gut level, I agree with GD. However, the idea that "legalizing it" will fix all of the problems is probably a little too "pie in the sky" for me.

Let's look at one problem with methadone clinics:
Since methadone clinics are funded by the government, and their budget is determined by the number of clients, there is an inherent disincentive to getting the junkies to kick. (I'm setting aside the fact that methadone is a bad, bad thing)
I, for one, would not be in favor of the government growing or selling any of this stuff, because all it does is allow for the possibility of the drug trade going to the hands of government profiteers instead of black market profiteers.

Since I moved to SF, I've become a supporter of the medical marijuana clubs (at least with my vote). If the federal gov would just leave it alone, it seems like this is a model that would work best.

I understand that Neph's reaction raises hackles (I, for one, have to get over the way she phrases her arguments and look at what she's trying to say), but to be honest, her attitude is probably in the majority. What needs to happen is that America needs to learn how to separate the disease of addiction from the crimes that the disease can lead the addict to committing.

Obviously, I'm in favor of the decriminalization of drug use and possession, because what an adult does to him/herself is none of my business (or the government's business).

The "war on drugs" is obviously not the answer. Setting up the government as dealers probably isn't the answer, either. Let's spend our tax dollars on education. Let's teach people that addiction can be treated. Let's treat addicts by helping them become sober.

I have never been one that believes that the legalization of drugs cures a multiple of ills. There will most certainly still be theft involved. There will be a huge black market. Drug dealers will not simply go quietly into the night because there are other outlets. I see them turning to other crime to finance their lifestyle - maybe protection rackets on stores which would sell the newly legalized drugs. Drug users will be just as violent to satisfy their addiction. As alcohol cannot be sold to minors, I'm sure drugs would fall under the same restrictions, so there is certainly still an illegal market that would be filled....illegally. Food stamps would still be sold for pennies on the dollar for cash to buy drugs, etc, etc, etc.

The problems would be different, but not necessarily reduced. Perhaps 20-30 years after legalization there might be some relief from the crime and violence associated with it, but certainly nothing in the short term.

Take prostitution in Nevada. Legal in some areas, but legal brothels are far more expensive than the average hooker walking down the strip in Vegas, I'm sure. I would not be in the least surprised if regulation, testing for purity and content, blah, blah, blah, would make a hit of crack more expensive at the local Walgreens than on the street. And I would not sit quietly if my tax dollars were used to fund one hit for one addict, and I could see that happening.

I never claimed it would fix all of the problems. And it will likely create a few new ones. But it's no different than prohibition. Making alcohol illegal created more problems than it solved.

Not sure what is wrong with the way I phrased anything- considering all I said was I would not want my tax dollars going for this.
:confused:

Your point? Yes, it will take time. I disagree with it taking that long because, among other things, with the isntant decrease in spending in enforcement, combined with increased revenue from taxes, efforts and resources can be concentrated on solving those remaining issues.[/quote]
Supply and demand. Legalized prostitution doesn't significantly increase the supply. You aren't going to suddenly have women clamboring to sell their bodies just because it's legal. Yes, there will be more, but you're right, not enough to offset the increased costs of running a legitimate business as opposed to walking the streets. But drugs? The most popular is a weed. Legalize it and California alone could probably supply the whole nation it grows so well out here. Others can be mass produced with relative ease. There would be no problem in increasing the supply to offset regulation costs.

Prohibition was stupid, plain and simple. But before prohibition there was a legal structure of manufacturers, suppliers and merchants. When the amendment was repealed, it was easy to restart that machine (which never really stopped anyway).

As far as I can recall, there haven't been any legal shooting galleries (I'm not talking Frontierland) or crack houses ever in the US, so the parallel to prohibition doesn't exactly work for me. As a voter, I'd need to know what the plan was before I cast my ballot...

Well there WAS a time when these drugs were legal. But no, there hasn't been a formal system before. And clearly there would have to be a plan, obviously a free-for-all wouldn't work, and would never happen in this day and age.

So of course it will take time, effort, and planning. It wouldn't be a instant fix. But a long term effective plan is better than the costly and ineffective war on drugs which creates more problems than it solves.

...and so ends my argument. I'm with you 100%.

GD, you are making the assumption that demand increases because it becomes legal. I reject that. There is not any profit for the drug companies in mass producing enough, say, ecstacy. Users use whether it is legal or not, and I doubt any significant increase in users will be evident if legalized. Therefore, supply and demand doesn't work as you are thinking it will.

Also, i doubt any drug companies would mass produce these types of drugs. Can you imagine the lawsuits they would open themselves to?

Huh? How is there no profit in meeting demand? By definition, there's always profit in supplying the demand.

No one's sued alcohol companies for drunk driving deaths, why would drug companies be liabel for anything?