What would happen if we legalized drugs?

[sanctus]

Yes, but bear in mind that I learned english when I was 17, when I lived for one year in Australia, and otherwise have never lived in a english speaking country. So some things, which can be a little brain twister for some, can be a big one for me. Eg. I did not known for what federal judges are known for in the US...

 

Ok, you can say that it is my problem being on a forum where mainly people from the US are...and actually I agree :-)

[Turtle]

This is a seminal work on justifying doing away with laws against recreational drug use and other victimless crimes. I have mentioned it in other threads (can't find them now :(), but I don't think I ever ran across the online version before. More rational arguments than you can shake a spliff at. :esmoking:

 

Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do, The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country

THIS BOOK IS BASED on a single idea: You should be allowed to do whatever you want with your own person and property, as long as you don't physically harm the person or property of a nonconsenting other.

 

Simple. Seemingly guaranteed to us by that remarkable document known as United States Constitution and its even more remarkable Bill of Rights. And yet, it's not the way things are.

 

Roughly half of the arrests and court cases in the United States each year involve consensual crimes—actions that are against the law, but directly harm no one's person or property except, possibly, the "criminal's."

 

More than 750,000 people are in jail right now because of something they did, something that did not physically harm the person or property of another. In addition, more than 3,000,000 people are on parole or probation for consensual crimes. Further, more than 4,000,000 people are arrested each year for doing something that hurts no one but, potentially, themselves.

 

The injustice doesn't end there, of course. Throwing people in jail is the extreme. If you can throw people in jail for something, you can fire them for the same reason. You can evict them from their apartments. You can deny them credit. You can expel them from schools. You can strip away their civil rights, confiscate their property, and destroy their lives—just because they're different. ...

[vanamoinen1]

Ganoderma: totally with you--and a bit of perspective: i live in fredericksburg, virginia which is a city encompassing a city heart and outlying areas falling in spotsylvania and stafford counties. there is a police training centre here and we have police with varying designated jurisdictions including both these localities as well as state troopers and sheriffs (oh, and park police--lots of battlefields here) with state-wide jurisdiction. routinely, we see 4 or 5 police vehicles congregating on simple traffic stops. now, i'm sure there are instances where 4 or 5 cops are necessary, and i'm sure that at some of those stops training is going on. but i'm equally sure that at many (if not most) of these stops, the cops are congregating because THERE ARE TOO MANY OF THEM AND THEY DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH TO DO TO KEEP THEM OCCUPIED. but this top-heavy law-enforcement mindset is touted as a great thing--look how low our crime rates are! welcome to the people's republic of virginia.

 

to be fair, there is something to be said about deterrence, but one could also infer that the politicos in this state do not trust our populace to maintain some semblance of an orderly society. too many people rely on the law-enforcement/judicial/incarceration complex to earn their income. and because this vested interest provides these voters with a predictable, steady income, our politicians do not seek alternative methods with which to address drug use and drug abuse issues. lock em up and forget about them!

 

Turtle: re: your citation, this always amazes me: "Seemingly guaranteed to us by that remarkable document known as United States Constitution and its even more remarkable Bill of Rights." Read those bill of rights again--we have very little actually enumerated in the Bill which would appear to respect a notion of a privacy interest from which you can derive this position. the shibboleth of conservative politics, the "activist judges" have created this privacy interest for us by inferring them or extending them from the enumerated rights. and, strangely, although most americans would tell you that our liberty is granted to us by our constitution/amendments and our declaration of independence, the declaration does not authorize our law and the constitution deals primarily with the power we ("the people") cede to our governing bodies. why is there no amendment which specifically cuts out a privacy interest for individuals and where is the political will to get one added to the other amendments?

 

but the question relates to drugs. i'd argue that at least part of the current political posturing is akin to the "illegal alien" mindset: why grant any rights to people who are breaking the law? the argument is self-feeding--these people are illegally here because we defined the mechanism by which they got here to be illegal. and once painted with the "illegal" brush, the thing is not illegal because of an application of our definitions, but rather because of a mental tying of "illegal" to "immoral" or "evil". we do not consider that the laws AS DRAFTED are ineffective and possibly detrimental to us.

 

illegal drugs are illegal not through any inherency, but rather because we have defined them to be so. and similarly, once painted "illegal" in the reflexive thinking of the politicians, drugs (schedule 2 drugs, at least) must BE immoral and evil. granted, some drugs have deleterious effects on one's thinking, reacting and planning processes. but the care-taker/"government-as-an-in-loco-parentis faculty" mentality switches on and does not switch off (that switch is broken).

 

all of us here on this forum can discuss this issue 'til the cows come home, or they move to argentina. but our discussing achieves-------wait for it--------discussion. i do note that justice department is reviewing the inequity (possibly iniquity as well) caused by the federal mandatory minimums w/re: crack vs. powdered cocaine. this is a positive step. nevertheless, the sentiment required to disengage from "use drugs, go to jail" or virginia's: "use drugs, we'll see if we can take your house AND you can go to jail" is not incorporated into the majority position within our congress. reefer-madness-as-reality is still a valid and argued position on the hill. as to how to change that sentiment, i'm at a loss.

[vanamoinen1]

Ganoderma: totally with you--and a bit of perspective: i live in fredericksburg, virginia which is a city encompassing a city heart and outlying areas falling in spotsylvania and stafford counties. there is a police training centre here and we have police with varying designated jurisdictions including both these localities as well as state troopers and sheriffs (oh, and park police--lots of battlefields here) with state-wide jurisdiction. routinely, we see 4 or 5 police vehicles congregating on simple traffic stops. now, i'm sure there are instances where 4 or 5 cops are necessary, and i'm sure that at some of those stops training is going on. but i'm equally sure that at many (if not most) of these stops, the cops are congregating because THERE ARE TOO MANY OF THEM AND THEY DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH TO DO TO KEEP THEM OCCUPIED. but this top-heavy law-enforcement mindset is touted as a great thing--look how low our crime rates are! welcome to the people's republic of virginia.

 

to be fair, there is something to be said about deterrence, but one could also infer that the politicos in this state do not trust our populace to maintain some semblance of an orderly society. too many people rely on the law-enforcement/judicial/incarceration complex to earn their income. and because this vested interest provides these voters with a predictable, steady income, our politicians do not seek alternative methods with which to address drug use and drug abuse issues. lock em up and forget about them!

 

Turtle: re: your citation, this always amazes me: "Seemingly guaranteed to us by that remarkable document known as United States Constitution and its even more remarkable Bill of Rights." Read those bill of rights again--we have very little actually enumerated in the Bill which would appear to respect a notion of a privacy interest from which you can derive this position. the shibboleth of conservative politics, the "activist judges" have created this privacy interest for us by inferring them or extending them from the enumerated rights. and, strangely, although most americans would tell you that our liberty is granted to us by our constitution/amendments and our declaration of independence, the declaration does not authorize our law and the constitution deals primarily with the power we ("the people") cede to our governing bodies. why is there no amendment which specifically cuts out a privacy interest for individuals and where is the political will to get one added to the other amendments?

 

but the question relates to drugs. i'd argue that at least part of the current political posturing is akin to the "illegal alien" mindset: why grant any rights to people who are breaking the law? the argument is self-feeding--these people are illegally here because we defined the mechanism by which they got here to be illegal. and once painted with the "illegal" brush, the thing is not illegal because of an application of our definitions, but rather because of a mental tying of "illegal" to "immoral" or "evil". we do not consider that the laws AS DRAFTED are ineffective and possibly detrimental to us.

 

illegal drugs are illegal not through any inherency, but rather because we have defined them to be so. and similarly, once painted "illegal" in the reflexive thinking of the politicians, drugs (schedule 2 drugs, at least) must BE immoral and evil. granted, some drugs have deleterious effects on one's thinking, reacting and planning processes. but the care-taker/"government-as-an-in-loco-parentis faculty" mentality switches on and does not switch off (that switch is broken).

 

all of us here on this forum can discuss this issue 'til the cows come home, or they move to argentina. but our discussing achieves-------wait for it--------discussion. i do note that justice department is reviewing the inequity (possibly iniquity as well) caused by the federal mandatory minimums w/re: crack vs. powdered cocaine. this is a positive step. nevertheless, the sentiment required to disengage from "use drugs, go to jail" or virginia's: "use drugs, we'll see if we can take your house AND you can go to jail" is not incorporated into the majority position within our congress. reefer-madness-as-reality is still a valid and argued position on the hill. as to how to change that sentiment, i'm at a loss.

[Turtle]

...Turtle: re: your citation, this always amazes me: "Seemingly guaranteed to us by that remarkable document known as United States Constitution and its even more remarkable Bill of Rights." Read those bill of rights again--we have very little actually enumerated in the Bill which would appear to respect a notion of a privacy interest from which you can derive this position. ...

 

As to my citation, I suggest you read it and discover for yourself the arguments in support of its assertions. Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do, The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country

As to the founding documents, privacy is specifically enumerated no matter how you minimize it out of hand.

 

all of us here on this forum can discuss this issue 'til the cows come home, or they move to argentina. but our discussing achieves-------wait for it--------discussion. i do note that justice department is reviewing the inequity (possibly iniquity as well) caused by the federal mandatory minimums w/re: crack vs. powdered cocaine. this is a positive step. nevertheless, the sentiment required to disengage from "use drugs, go to jail" or virginia's: "use drugs, we'll see if we can take your house AND you can go to jail" is not incorporated into the majority position within our congress. reefer-madness-as-reality is still a valid and argued position on the hill. as to how to change that sentiment, i'm at a loss.

 

If this discussion achieves nothing in your view, why do you participate? :esmoking: :(

[vanamoinen1]

interesting site; and while i do not disagree with the slant of the author's position, i still disagree that there is a generalized privacy interest in our constitution/amendments--and not by "minimiz[ing] it out of hand". and look, to be clear, if i could see such a privacy interest, i'd be glad to find it and concede it--i am not in disagreement with the idea that we should be able to do as we will with our selves and our property in the absence of infringing someone else's rights/property. what i'm saying is that the tool that we have to work with, the law, is grounded first in the constitution, and our constitution/amendments does not spell out anything resembling a generalized privacy interest which could accommodate mr. mcwilliams' position. to my own thinking, his is a reasonable position to begin from, but it is not the position on which our law/system of government is built.

 

the supremes (presumably the cream of the judicial crop with teams of law clerks at their beck and call) themselves repeatedly have not found a specifically enumerated privacy interest other than precisely those matters (religion, arms, EP, DP, reasonable S&S) which have been enumerated. this has forced them to concoct the "penumbra" approach rather than find some broader grant/retention under the 9th & 10th ams. imagine how different the court's approach to abortion, contraception and homeschooling would have been if the individual had held a privacy interest made explicit in the constitution/ams.

 

the court has interpreted/invented a generalized privacy interest based on the penumbras where it has been helpful in achieving a result it has desired. rights as seemingly private as marrying and raising children were addressed as penumbral in the seminal case meyer v nebraska. the sodomy issue popped up in hardwick v bowers (shot down) and recently the laurence v texas (sodomy wins) cases with the penumbras flying ever-which-way. and the whole [contraceptive/reproductive choice] family has had to find a home in the shade of the penumbras. bet everything you own: scalia, thomas and alito DO NOT LIKE penumbral privacy rights.

 

"If this discussion achieves nothing in your view, why do you participate?" you have misconstrued my position. discussion achieves discussion. but it's action that may achieve change, especially if the action is guided by reasoned discussion. i left open to the discussion how one might go about changing a mindset and i admitted up front that i cannot see a solution which would provide this change.

 

oh, and i did provide one broad suggestion which i'll repeat: amend the constitution with a specific generalized privacy interest of the individual.

[Turtle]

interesting site; and while i do not disagree with the slant of the author's position, i still disagree that there is a generalized privacy interest in our constitution/amendments--and not by "minimiz[ing] it out of hand". and look, to be clear, if i could see such a privacy interest, i'd be glad to find it and concede it--i am not in disagreement with the idea that we should be able to do as we will with our selves and our property in the absence of infringing someone else's rights/property. what i'm saying is that the tool that we have to work with, the law, is grounded first in the constitution, and our constitution/amendments does not spell out anything resembling a generalized privacy interest which could accommodate mr. mcwilliams' position. to my own thinking, his is a reasonable position to begin from, but it is not the position on which our law/system of government is built.

 

No doubt a sticky wicket, but equally no doubt that rulings based on those foundations of our government have gone some distance in clarifying a 'right to privacy'.

 

The Right of Privacy: Is it Protected by the Constitution?

...The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial. Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists. The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment. Polls show most Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution. ...

 

 

the supremes (presumably the cream of the judicial crop with teams of law clerks at their beck and call) themselves repeatedly have not found a specifically enumerated privacy interest other than precisely those matters (religion, arms, EP, DP, reasonable S&S) which have been enumerated. this has forced them to concoct the "penumbra" approach rather than find some broader grant/retention under the 9th & 10th ams. imagine how different the court's approach to abortion, contraception and homeschooling would have been if the individual had held a privacy interest made explicit in the constitution/ams.

 

see above contradicting reference. ↑

 

the court has interpreted/invented ...

 

Erhm...that's their job.

 

"If this discussion achieves nothing in your view, why do you participate?"

you have misconstrued my position. discussion achieves discussion. but it's action that may achieve change, especially if the action is guided by reasoned discussion. i left open to the discussion how one might go about changing a mindset and i admitted up front that i cannot see a solution which would provide this change.

 

oh, and i did provide one broad suggestion which i'll repeat: amend the constitution with a specific generalized privacy interest of the individual.

 

I see no reason to jump to ammending the Constitution. When & if such matters reach the Supreme Court with standing, I expect the matter to have the consideration it deserves. :naughty:

[vanamoinen1]

Turtle: another interesting site, and each of those cases are standard subject matter for 1L conlaw. each of those cases makes interesting reading material if you actually have a genuine interest in conlaw and you will understand how our penumbral rights were developed outside the context of our states' common laws. add this one as well: Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)--audio available at oyez.org; the orals are EXTREMELY interesting.

 

here is a simplified schema of how we got to where we are:

 

US Constitution Annotated - Development of the Right of Privacy

 

i can't loan you my lexis/nexis account, but any law library can refer you to any number of law journal articles discussing this issue--it is neither a minor nor uncomplicated one. Bork's failure to get through confirmation is important not in least part because his strict interpretation (the neocon's "strict construction") cannot be dismissed for lack of merit in the argument. the only effective counter to this position is adherence to stare decisis. the GOP position (now more conservative than ever) is firmly on bork's side. that is a reality--whatever the supremes have done, will do, might have done, might not have done etc.--political reality must be faced notwithstanding the court's position.

 

"I see no reason to jump to ammending the Constitution. When & if such matters reach the Supreme Court with standing, I expect the matter to have the consideration it deserves."

 

this "...[w]hen & if..." this does not make sense. in the absence of my proposed amendment, there is no such thing as "standing" to apply to the situation since our court does not sit in an advisory capacity. absent a plaintiff, who, lacking said amendment could not have had his constitutional rights violated by same or who, lacking said amendment could not have suffered any injury based on a violation of said non-existing amendment, and in the alternative, lacking a proper federal question, there is no access to the court. this is not a matter of standing, it's a matter of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and even given a theoretical access to court, the court could only issue a void rather than voidable ruling.

 

again, this is the issue i raise as relates to the thread "what would happen if we legalized drugs?": how would you contructively propose changing the current mindset vis-a-vis the drug use/go to jail mindset?

[Turtle]

Turtle: another interesting site,

 

Dank. :) Nice to hear I hit a target. My education in law is limited to Perry Mason and his ilk and the occasional interview on Charlie Rose and his ilk. :(

here is a simplified schema of how we got to where we are:

 

US Constitution Annotated - Development of the Right of Privacy

 

Roger. Will peruse.

 

this "...[w]hen & if..." this does not make sense. in the absence of my proposed amendment' date=' there is no such thing as "standing" to apply to the situation since our court does not sit in an advisory capacity. absent a plaintiff, who, lacking said amendment could not have had his constitutional rights violated by same or who, lacking said amendment could not have suffered any injury based on a violation of said non-existing amendment, and in the alternative, lacking a proper federal question, there is no access to the court. this is not a matter of standing, it's a matter of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and even given a theoretical access to court, the court could only issue a void rather than voidable ruling. [/quote']

 

Per my above mentioned law education (), my use of the term "standing" stems from an explantion I heard from the Supreme Court reporter on the PBS News Hour talking about a recent case involving the display of the Ten Commandments (I think). As I understood it, the plaintiff had suffered no loss, or at least could not show it, and so was said to be "without standing" and the case was dismissed. I meant to similarly imply that someone wanting to challenge their "right" to use drugs privately would have to show they suffered some loss in the deprivation of that "right".

 

again, this is the issue i raise as relates to the thread "what would happen if we legalized drugs?": how would you contructively propose changing the current mindset vis-a-vis the drug use/go to jail mindset?

By the means you yourself put forward, i.e. using what is learned from discussion and take some action such as writing to representatives to express your view and give supporting information, joining a like-minded group, or instigating further discussion on some nuance or other or in a previously unexposed venue.

 

Along with our rights come our responsibilities.:naughty:

[buddhaboy]

i have no problem with legalisng drugs per se...but i dont think its just a case of saying that .. ive heard many cannabis addicts saying"legalise it"!!!!! as far as people being able to maketheir own choice...fair enough...they are responible for themselves, as they say... but will they be responsible when they get some mental damage from the drug... abd are walking the streets you and i walk?....its not s much the drugs, and the immeadiate"buzz" that people are after, but the eventual fallout....i know a guy who has smoked drugs for seventeen yeas snd have seen him go from an intelligent guy, to someone who cant string a sentence together, and cant hold down or get a job,because his pace is so slow, from smoking drugs..that he cant, .wouldntbe able to work to deadlines or handle pressure of any kind. Should those of us who dont use drugs pay for the fallout and consequences of others actions? maybe they shouldlegalise it and put tax on it to fund all the eevntual health and pychiatric issues it eventually creates...

[freeztar]

Should those of us who dont use drugs pay for the fallout and consequences of others actions?

 

We already are paying for it in the US. It shows itself in healthcare costs, employment, etc.

 

maybe they shouldlegalise it and put tax on it to fund all the eevntual health and pychiatric issues it eventually creates...

 

I agree with legalization, but I don't agree that all drug use eventually leads to health and psychiatric issues. For example, alcohol does not always lead people to health and psychiatric issues. For some it does, for others, it has little to no effect on their mental or physical well being.

 

The best way to overcome the largest hurdle to legalization (misuse/overuse), is, imho, to legalize drugs as medicine. It would put currently illegal drugs into a very controlled environment. Appropriate usage and dosages would be established. Those that could benefit from the drugs would have access to them. And, the government would earn extra money from levying taxes.

 

Even currently accepted drugs had to overcome this hurdle.

 

The issue of Prohibition became a highly controversial one among medical professionals, because alcohol was widely prescribed by physicians of the era for therapeutic purposes. Congress held hearings on the medicinal value of beer in 1921. Subsequently, physicians across the country lobbied for the repeal of Prohibition as it applied to medicinal liquors.[10]

 

When I look around me, here in the USA, I find that the biggest threats to public health from drugs are coming from the two major drugs that are legal, alcohol and tobacco. So, perhaps there's an argument to be made that legalization increases consumption, but look at what happened during Prohibition.

 

At the end of Prohibition, some supporters openly admitted its failure. A quote from a letter, written in 1932 by wealthy industrialist John D. Rockefeller, Jr., states:

 

When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before.[14]

 

Public opinion seems to have swayed the law with alcohol prohibition in the US. We live in a different era now though. Public opinion, today, is either afraid to come out of the closet or simply not large enough, imho.

 

Quotes from the wiki on Prohibition

[Racoon]

Looks like Mexico is taking a step forward.

 

Mexico passes bill on small-scale drugs possession | Reuters

 

 

Small amount possesion will be seen as inconsequential.

If someone wants to do drugs, thats their business.

As long as you:

#1 - Don't hurt anybody

#2 - Don't cost them any money.

 

My liberty ends where another's begins.

 

And anyone who has studied a little sociology or criminology know that approximately 50% of crime, abuse, assault, work related problems, and everything else bad, is related to the legalized, and socially accepted, and heavily advertised, taxed, regulated drug of Alcohol.

 

People are going to do what people do. You will never eliminate need or desire in the general population.

So help the system work better and more efficiently.

[Ganoderma]

The best way to overcome the largest hurdle to legalization (misuse/overuse), is, imho, to legalize drugs as medicine. It would put currently illegal drugs into a very controlled environment. Appropriate usage and dosages would be established. Those that could benefit from the drugs would have access to them. And, the government would earn extra money from levying taxes.

 

that's how the controlled nature of such things as marijuana started, as a medicine you needed a permit/ticket or whatever for....then it all evolved into the "Controlled Substances Act" that many countries have today, which basically outlaw many things. but it all started in needing permission to go and buy marijuana, and getting that permission was next to impossible and so it went.

 

 

but the thing is, at least with marijuana, is that is is a legitimate medicine capable of helping enormous amounts of people. Many of these people have no legal option for it so they end up going to drug dealers to buy something they could be getting from Rexall. When i read stories of people getting arrested for cannabis in various countries when its for things like pain relief in cancer and such, it just all seems really inside out and totally corrupt. It should never have come to where it is today, ever. It also make me curious how opium derived pain killers and such are so widely used in medicine (which in many cases is great), and lesser/softer drugs like marijuana is not legal.

 

An RCMP (Canadian cops) wrote an article pointing out a very good point in why marijuana won't be used in medicine: It's smoked. Smoking is just lousy for you, and even if the person is dieing without, its not something that can readily be done inside a hospital setting. I always wondered if there where some other method like making thc into a puffer like they have for asthma patients, if that would be effective or not.

[Moontanman]

You can eat it, or fry in in butter and bake it into brownies, smoking is not necessary!

[Ganoderma]

yes there are many ways. most are more or less under studied. oral consumption compared to smoked though are quite different in effects and time. much like tobacco in that sense i guess. both plants can be fairly hallucinogenic, especially tobacco, when orally taken. Also slower to respond and more areas of variability when mixed with certain diets i suppose. smoked is fairly instant, at least harder to OD on more dangerous drugs like tobacco as the onset is so fast when you are taking too much you usually realize it and stop, oral consumption its already down and all you can do is puke and hope.

 

I'm sure weed can eventually be made into an oral pill type medication, but i personally think that at least for what its commonly claimed to help now, lungs are the best route.....which makes me wonder is puffers are a reasonable option. vaporizers are also a grand idea, but are still smoking (vapours) and will likely never be adopted by hospitals....i think anyway.

 

what do ya think?

[Moontanman]

Smoking may be faster but it is shorter lived, frying buds in butter dissolves the active ingredients and allows the body to take them up much faster than just eating cannabis. The effect is not only longer lasting but it is as quick as any opiate pain pill. dissolving THC in alcohol is also much faster than simply eating MJ and MJ can be used in place of Hops when brewing beer for a very effective treatment. The good thing is no matter how you take it it can't kill you like opiates can and do every day.

[Racoon]

:Aside from pot, that should be legal, IMHO, because its a natural plant.. used for eons and millenium,...There are hypocrisies in other drug usage/legality.

 

ie Its ok for the government to give Air Force pilots amphetemines to carry out long bomber missions.

But they say its illegal if Joe Schmoe needs to stay up all night on a graveyard shift.

 

Its OK to give millions kids hard-*** prescription drugs, such as what is basically amphetimenes, But the FDA bans Ephedra, a natural herb used to help weight loss and increase energy.

 

Its OK to give Junkies methadone, which is just about as bad as Heroin itself, and the relapse rate is very high. (no pun intended) .. at least w/ Methadone, the junkies have to pay the state for it, instead of drug peddlers..

 

You name it, theres a Hypocrisy behind it. You name it, and the Pharmaceutical giants want a piece of the pie, or to eliminate the competition.

 

My philosophy is if its Natural, ie a Plant; mushrooms, pot, whatever South American herbs, even Coca, should be legal.

Coca is used by the native indians to help stave off hunger and to work more in the fields.. they chew on the leaves.

If you process it, cut it with chemicals, then you change the nature and peoples connotations of said "herb"..

 

Its a lot more of Politics, Propoganda, and Economics than it is Common Sense..

:surprise:

 

Its basically a reason to helps keep prisons full, and people in the "system" and in Check.

 

The War on Drugs.

 

If drugs were Legal, the Money wouldn't be going to dangerous Cartels, Gangs, and Bandits with automatic weapons.