It appears I've hijacked my own thread. Doh!

True, but at what point do we say when? Jails are insanely overcrowded. I've been told it costs roughly $100 per day to house an inmate in a simple county jail. What form of punishment is sufficient to deter them?

You guys are silly. If prostitution, drugs, etc were legal, there would be no black market for them. They would be sold by large companies that would be taxed just as they are for current products like cigarettes. Noone would buy risky illegal black market drugs when they could buy cheaper and better ones from a pharmacy.

Just what we need, another government revenue stream. Democrat tort lawyers lobby licking their chops at the opportunity to sue sue sue for the sure-as-***** fallout from allowing these evil cats out of the bag. Not to mention Democrat politicians ready and willing to take contributions from not only the prostitution providers and drug companies, but the lawyers who sue them...And then to make one big happy vicious circle of corruption the Democrat politicians will demand free drugs to the addicted, welfare "for the children" and tax-payer funded "big-recovery" for the flood of drug addicted losers.

Legalize it!...Wooohoooooo....Rock on!....Pass the doobie on the leftist hand side!

"Is a drug user committing the same criminal act as a drug pusher?"

No, the exploiter is worse than the exploited.

Pretty effective actually...I've heard more than one AA say so.

It is no different than alcohol. During prohibition it was still readily available...but only from gangsters. It was unsafe and killed many. It was run by organized crime and provided vast amounts of funds to be used in other unseemly ways. No taxes were collected and the product was inherently unsafe. Much of that ended with prohibition. The same is true for illegal drugs today. They could easily be legalized, but still controlled like other drugs, alcohol or cigarettes. Portions/doses could be controlled and it would be much easier to identify users to prevent their working in industries (airline pilot for example) that would be unsafe. What an adult chooses to do in the privacy of their own home that harms no one except maybe themself should never be constrained in a free nation.

It would not be another revenue stream...it would simply be taxed like any other product is.

Would there be "drug addicted losers" as you describe? Of course, just as there is now. But you would probably find less users once it was no longer glamorous (like cigarettes), Criminals would not profit from drugs, and there would likely be less side effects with portion controls/purer products....As far as the recovery programs, etc...we already have those too...along with prisons full of people who are there for drug-related crimes.

You make it sound like the person buying the drug does not know what they are getting into. That is a crock. They make their choice to take a substance knowing full well that it is illegal and addictive. They deserve no better fate than the pusher. Both intentionally break the law for their own purpose.

One is just stupid, the other is serially profitting on stupidity.

Jerry Springer profits on stupidity, preying on the stupid...he is the exploiter and worse than the exploited...same thing with the drug-pusher.

And I thought that you were a champion of "personal responsibility?" Got a weak spot for people who want to experiment with illegal drugs? exploited heck. The drug dealers don't go door-to-door in the suburbs. You don't get samples in the mail. Anyone who wants to buy illegal drugs has to go looking for them.

If you believe that you have lived in a very sheltered world.

Mul, I usually pretty much agree with you but this statement is way off.

I have a very good friend who the warden at a large federal prison. The inmates can get any drug that they want inside, it just costs money or cigarettes. There are usually more drugs inside the "house of doors" than many people find outside so this statement does not wash.

JoeA

A drug user is not harming anyone but himself, and so he should not be considered a criminal. It's a health problem, not a crime problem.

A drug pusher is a capitalist. You decide whether that's criminal or not.

there are a lot of people in AA who don't "get it."

Fake it 'till you make it...

Agree with the above until the drug addict starts robbing to support their habit, which happens far too often.
Also, look at the Mothers and Fathers who ruin the family when they get addicted this crap. Here the kids are messed up for life, so this is not a totally victim-less crime.

I do not like the current policies but am not ready to legalize everything.

JoeA

How about just legalizing medicinal pot? Those of the slippery-slope ilk will argue that it will further erode our society. Did the erosion of our society stop when they made pot illegal?

I just saw a Melissa Ethridge interview about surviving the treatment for breast cancer by smoking some pot. She said it would have had to taken a carefully balanced concoction of legal medications, some to offset the side effects of each other, to combat the nausea that comes from being taken to the brink of death. That's what chemo's like. Is this the type of person that we want to keep pot away from? It's proven to work.

Where are the Compassionate Conservatives?

Yep...I do not care how safe and cheap drugs are, the consequences will be the same: Increased crime and dependency; and of course Democrat trial lawyers making a fortune suing the manufacturers and distributors.

"Got Coke?"

There is a medication called Marinol that uses endocannabinoids to simulate the effects of marijuana. This medication, like all medications, needs a doctor's supervision. In my years of experience I have not seen examples of patient prescribed dosing, as interactions and effects may contraindicate overall therapy...This is the problem with "medicinal marijuana", dosing varies by batch and it is very difficult to control the desired effect. In cases of emphysema, lung cancer or vascular diseases, I cannot see how smoking would be beneficial. The problem with "medicinal marijuana" seems to be the control of the THC and the possiblity of deleterious consequences...There are medications on the market, like Marinol, that are more effective for producing the same effects that smoking marijuana promises unscientifically.

I would venture that Ms. Ethridge would have used "medicinal marijuana" with or without breast cancer.

Those pushing for marijuana legalization use the "medicinal" argument as a front, just as they use "hemp" as a front...The hypocrisy is that these folks are quite often the same types who have fought hard to demonize cigarette smoking in public.

Alcohol fits the above, so why is it legal? I think the risk of drunk driving is greater than the risk posed by a Liberal Arts major and maryjuana. Why does society believe individuals can use and not abuse alcohol, but not believe the same of marijuana?

Alcohol ruins more lives and families than all the other drugs combined. With logic like Joe's we'd outlaw alcohol. Wait....we tried that. And we're trying it with drugs. Hmmmmmm.....