I’m not arguing that all of the crime associated with illegal drugs will go away if we legalize them. I am arguing, with a good basis to do so, that the majority of the crime will go away as the black market for drugs is removed. Will some addicts still commit violent crimes? Yes, they will. But, they already do. Many more do today than would if those drugs were legal.

While there can be no doubt that the majority of serious organized crime related to drug use is because of their illegality, one cannot discount the personal and social consequences of debilitating addiction.

Legal or not, drugs will always be expensive to someone unable to hold a job because of their addiction. Also because of their addicition, addicts have degraded moral, social, and personal judgement; especially with regard to rationalization, and consequences.

Given a situation where someone with degraded moral and consequential judgement, does not have the financial means to obtain that which he is addicted to; he WILL steal. He will rob, he will steal, he will prostitute himself, he will even kill to get it.

Addicts are jsut that; they don’t care about anything but satisfying their addiction; and legalizing drugs won’t make that problem go away.

That said, I don’t consider this a reason why drugs should remain illegal. Addicts are addicts, whether their addiction is legal or not.

Additionally, the majority of “casual” drug users over the past almost 70 years (since the first real drug laws were passed) have been jsut that, casual. These users have not descended into addiction, or if they have their addiction has been mild enough to cause them little harm; or simply to act as an object lesson; social darwinism in action if you will.

My personal preference would be that all drugs of any kind not a danger to the general populace (airborne halucinogens for example might not be allowed) be legal, and let individuals deal with the consequences of their use.

Of course along with this, I would allow, and in fact encourage employers and insurers to set their own standards for what drug use, and what impact, is acceptable.

As everyone else said, of course white people do drugs. I went to college in a rather conservative mostly-white midwestern state, and yet drugs weren’t exactly hidden. But white, middle-class people don’t make for good propaganda.

Think about it this way. The DEA is trying to make sure they have public support for policies that strip all manner of rights away from Americans. Could they do that if they portrayed Uncle Bob, who occasionally gets high on the weekends as the scapegoat? Could they do it if they showed little Sally at college occasionally taking ecstacy at a party? Of course not. Then people might understand that it’s their own rights at stake.

They have to portray drugs in the worst light possible, and in doing so, demonize the user. That’s a lot easier, from a propaganda standpoint, if they can portray “those people” as the drug users, instead of people’s family, friends, or neighbors. It certainly isn’t right, and drug problems hit all neighborhoods. But if it is portrayed as hitting everyone, it humanizes the problem, and requires them to come up with rational solutions. If it’s portrayed as “those people” in “the bad part of town”, then it’s easy to get political support for all sorts of destructive policies.

Meth. And a nasty, nasty, drug it is at that. I ever catch anyone remotely related to me dabbling in it, I’ll whup their ass myself.

However, not surprisingly, most people feel the solution to meth is to require more regulation with anhydrous ammonia and sudafed, steeply increased penalties for users (because, you know, the best way to fix a family that’s been broken by meth is to throw half the family in jail for 5 years) and more funding for anti-meth task forces.

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/

Pete was at the museum passing out flyers along with members from Students for Sensible Drug Policy

Most people who are thoughtful on the topic will recognize that prohibition of alcohol led to increased crime and contempt for government. They will tell us that alcohol should remain legal, even though it, as an agent, is involved in more deaths per year than all other drugs combined. I also usually hear, even though all evidence says the opposite, that the price of cocaine, heroine, etc. will remain high if it is legalized, because addicts have to have it. This, of course, ignores a multitude of other factors impacting price. When I point out that alcoholics are in the same boat and ask why alcohol isn’t priced sky high, the answer I often get is “I don’t know”. But, they continue to believe that other drugs, when legalized, won’t follow a typical, legal economic path.

We ultimately reach the point, when trying to discuss this logically and rationally, that they will concede most points I make. And then insist that these drugs have to remain illegal because they are “bad”.