Couldn't we save roughly the same amount of money by cutting entitlement programs?

I refuse to believe legalizing it for monetary reasons is a smart idea.

I think it's funny how everyone states it as we should "legalize it" as if it were illegal from the beginning of time. Marijuana for example was legal but was made illegal for reasons that aren't what you'd see in your everyday DARE ad. It's an absurd 70 year old law based upon 70 year old ideals and more importantly, 70 year old scientific research. The more accurate term would be to end the prohibition of marijuana (much like we did to alcohol once we came to our senses there). I'd like to think we've evolved as a society, but a lot of people in Washington apparently disagree. Over 800,000 people were locked up for weed possession last year and the number continues to grow. I just don't understand anyone who could logically argue that this war on drugs is working or that it should continue to go on.

cruiser_96;779034 wrote:Couldn't we save roughly the same amount of money by cutting entitlement programs?

I refuse to believe legalizing it for monetary reasons is a smart idea.

Again, other methods are also more effective at curbing drug use. What about the drug war has been effective in the least? It's a failure in every sense of the word. Let's stop using failed drug policies over and over.

More than one discussion seem to be going on here...

#1) "The drug war is crap." ...I totally get that. Don't have a problem with that statement.

#2) "Legalize one and/or a number and/or all drugs because the war on drugs is crap." ... I think this is an absurd statement.

#3) "Legalize/end prohibition of marijuana and tax it." ...This is the most ridiculous of all! These people should be forced to sign their name to a document. And then, when they are the very ones crying about "the government is evil, man. This plant is free, man. The "Man" shouldn't tax this natural grown herb, man." we should match their names and execute them. Human nature is ridiculous and exacerbated when fed.

cruiser_96;779120 wrote:More than one discussion seem to be going on here...

#1) "The drug war is crap." ...I totally get that. Don't have a problem with that statement.

#2) "Legalize one and/or a number and/or all drugs because the war on drugs is crap." ... I think this is an absurd statement.

#3) "Legalize/end prohibition of marijuana and tax it." ...This is the most ridiculous of all! These people should be forced to sign their name to a document. And then, when they are the very ones crying about "the government is evil, man. This plant is free, man. The "Man" shouldn't tax this natural grown herb, man." we should match their names and execute them. Human nature is ridiculous and exacerbated when fed.

2: That's not why people say to legalize it. They say to legalize it because there are plenty of studies and actual use cases that show that education, treatment and rehabilitation are much more effective than the drug war.

3. Why is it ridiculous to want to tax an item? It makes senses economically/morally/logically/etc.

So you'd have the drug war continue then I take it? And if not what is your alternative?

I Wear Pants;778949 wrote:Yes. Because everything I've read on the subject has shown that fighting drugs in the current way does not work, at all. And it's not like we've only got a small period of time that we're looking at. We've been doing the same shit for 50 years. It doesn't work, the drug war is an unmitigated disaster. What I have seen are many studies and actual programs that show prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation programs are far more effective at discouraging drug use and are also more cost efficient.

Of course that won't happen any time soon because (and I'm sure they'll be an example in this thread shortly) people who don't actually care about stopping drugs will read that and think "he wants Meth to be legal" or bring up something stupid about children. No one is suggesting kids should be allowed to use drugs just like kids shouldn't be allowed to use alcohol or tobacco. But I see no point in wasting billions and billions of dollars and locking up hundreds of thousands of people as well as the violence and crime that stems from our current drug policies.

who will be paying for the rehab programs? what happens when the rehab doesnt work, then punish?

No, they moved to producing and distributing their product legally. People, despite what you probably think, enjoy being able to say they're legitimate business people. Assuming it could be profitable I'd bet the farm that most pot dealers, etc would love to be working in a dispensary or store of some sort to sell their product instead of trying to establish business by way of shady, illegal, back alley deals.

the mafia started selling their own brand of alcohol? maybe your small time hippie pot heads would go legal, but the organized element making billions probably wont.

Y-Town Steelhound;779075 wrote:Over 800,000 people were locked up for weed possession last year and the number continues to grow. I just don't understand anyone who could logically argue that this war on drugs is working or that it should continue to go on.

the average user isnt locked up for weed. minor possession is just a citation.

Glory Days;779139 wrote:who will be paying for the rehab programs? what happens when the rehab doesnt work, then punish?

Me and you have discussed this a lot on here. Everything I've seen has shown that rehab, etc is cheaper. Though I cannot recall if the places that used that made the user pay for them (like you have to pay for the DIP, etc if you get an OVI) or if it was paid for by the court. Obviously having the person themselves pay is the ideal situation.

However, I also have never said that we have to go completely to what I've stated right away. This can be done gradually. A good starting point I think would be marijuana, then when people realize there isn't some massive spike in crime but actually probably a reduction of it (well statistically at least because of the near million arrests per year because of pot, don't think it would have any significant effect positive or negative on "real" crime) and they look at all the money saved they'd want to start thinking about applying it to the other drugs as well. Not because we condone meth or crack or whatever use but because I believe, and I've read tons of articles from knowledgeable people that believe, it would result in not only a great cost savings but on a lessening of the abuse of those drugs.

the mafia started selling their own brand of alcohol? maybe your small time hippie pot heads would go legal, but the organized element making billions probably wont.

But the buyers would go legal. There aren't many people that want to buy products from shady dudes instead of from Walgreens or a similarly reputable vendor. I could buy illegal alcohol but no one does because I prefer the safer, legal, more reputable options. Same will be for pot. People would rather buy it legally where there would likely be standards in regards to the quality and purity rather than illegally. And no I don't have a link for that, it's simply the scenario as I see it.

I Wear Pants;779121 wrote:2: That's not why people say to legalize it. They say to legalize it because there are plenty of studies and actual use cases that show that education, treatment and rehabilitation are much more effective than the drug war.

If it's education you want, have the parents educate them. And have health classes reiterate the education. Education complete and not one extra penny spent than what is already spent. Factor in cuts in entitlements and now we are saving money.

I Wear Pants;779121 wrote:3. Why is it ridiculous to want to tax an item? It makes senses economically/morally/logically/etc.

Are you saying legalizing or taxing is moral? Or both? What about the actual partaking of said legalized drugs...is that moral?

I Wear Pants;779121 wrote:So you'd have the drug war continue then I take it? And if not what is your alternative?

Family is the fundamental unit of society. The "War on Drugs" is a symptom of a greater problem. My personal opinion is that this "War" like many others of it's kind (poverty, childhood obesity, homelessness, etc) are an attempt by politicians to make it look like they are doing something. You want to do something productive? Take away safety nets and then put the onus back on parents. Whose problem is it then??? The parents! Not the Gubments.

Moral has nothing to do with it. A person is not moral or immoral because of drug use.

Glory Days;779141 wrote:the average user isnt locked up for weed. minor possession is just a citation.

True but paraphernalia is not. Unless you are to assume that people are not actually smoking/vaporizing their weed than you have made a very misleading statement.

All of the so-called societal wars (drugs, poverty) have ended up doing more harm than good in the long run. They've cost more and more money, not accomplished any of their major goals, and actually made society a worse place for having existed.

The war on poverty created entitlement programs in the 60s that are still around, and all but ruined black families (since you are bringing up families here).

The war on drugs created an entire industry that now uses excessive violence to control its territories, costing thousands of lives each year, and something like 70 percent of all other crime can be linked back to drugs in some way (break-ins, murders, assaults, thefts, etc.)

Nobody is going to disagree that the right message (don't use drugs) begins at home and can be (is now) reinforced through community education, etc., much the way we try and do now with alcohol. While alcohol dependency figures probably haven't changed much, the deaths and destruction related to drinking and driving has gone way down.

There's no reason a similar effort couldn't be done with marijuana, at least, and perhaps some other drugs as well. If you take out the profit motive, you automatically lessen lots of related crime.

Writerbuckeye;780476 wrote:There's no reason a similar effort couldn't be done with marijuana, at least, and perhaps some other drugs as well. If you take out the profit motive, you automatically lessen lots of related crime.

Yes but there's no money in it.

That's well said Writer.

believer, money in it for who?

believer;780509 wrote:Yes but there's no money in it.

it would save money, so yes there is.

Glory Days;778558 wrote:Too many "private sector" jobs also....dont forget the drug dealers. they wont just fold up shop and go away when they are making a living off it.

and everyone says tax it, ummm how? i can grow and manufacture all kinds of drugs without people knowing if i wanted to. how would someone tax me?

Are you really going to use this lame argument that you could grow and manufacture drugs to prove that legalizing it wouldn't bring in tax revenues? Just look at the HUGE tax revenues in medical marijuana states. Legalize for recreational use and tax revenues will grow 10 fold.

Glory Days;778770 wrote:habit. because thats the way its been done for a long time.

Horseshit. It's not habit, it's convenience. People are willing to pay a premium for something if it is more convenient. And if you want to grow marijuana, it can actually be expensive. The equipment and the utilities (if growing indoors) can be a couple thousand bucks. Not too mention you may not yield much when you harvest and the THC concentration may not be as high as if you just went to a dispensary. (not that I know about growing marijuana )

Glory Days;778771 wrote:so we just continue to legalize crimes as they become a problem?

They became a problem because we made them illegal. They weren't a problem before that. Look in countries in which drug laws are laxed. On a per capita basis, drug use is lower than the US.

Glory Days;778775 wrote:about 20% of that is spent fighting marijuana. do you think the harder more dangerous drugs be legalized too?

I actually do only because I don't think it is the gov't's job to protect people from themselves. The people that are going to use hard core drugs will use them whether they are legal or not (rational people are not going to say, "oh, heroin is legal now, I think I'll try it out"). Might as well tax them and give them rulles (like only certain places to use). You could have user clinics. That way people that lose their job from fighting the war on drugs don't lose their job, they could just switch careers and work at facilities that allow drug use, funded by tax revenues off drug sales.

There are some interesting points in this thread. The cost to the taxpayer and the "return", if you will, is something that probably deserves some attention. Also, I wouldn't call the drug war "ineffective" but rather not nearly as effective as it perhaps needs to be to justify the expense. I know I can drive down to the seedy area of town and get drugs, but beside not wanting to it's not a risk I'd take. Stop enforcing it and I imagine I'd have someone offer me drugs on an almost daily basis.

Which brings me to point #2...The data posted about harm to oneself and others with alcohol being number 1...Without looking at the merits of the study, accepted at face value you have to consider the impact of legalization with many more new users and users being less discrete, i.e. driving and so on.

But to me the major factor is - and it maybe doesn't get much press - but places such as Portugal which have gone to legalization and treatment offer a interesting test case for those worried about everything going to hell with legalization (I think it warrants more study, but crime and costs are down across the board there).

Yes, every little bit helps and $16B is $16B, but at the same time we aren't talking about money spent studying the mating habits of the swamp rat or building an airport or train that no one uses.

I Wear Pants;780611 wrote:believer, money in it for who?

Pick6;780708 wrote:it would save money, so yes there is.

Obviously my attempt at sarcasm went by the wayside.

believer;781579 wrote:Obviously my attempt at sarcasm went by the wayside.

I thought it was spot on, and more truthful than many would think.

Believer's comment was spot on. There's a ton of GOVERNMENT money in keeping the status quo -- which is why it would be hard to change anything. Too many mouths are sucking on that huge government tit and will not let it go without a fight. How's that for imagery?

gut;781578 wrote: Also, I wouldn't call the drug war "ineffective" but rather not nearly as effective as it perhaps needs to be to justify the expense.

the two goals of the war on drugs have been to reduce the supply of illegal drugs in the United State and lower the amount of people who use those illegal drugs in the United States. They have failed MISERABLY at both. To call this "war" anything but literally a complete failure is laughable.

Also, that study you're talking about a good one here is a link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210

Writerbuckeye;781863 wrote:Believer's comment was spot on. There's a ton of GOVERNMENT money in keeping the status quo -- which is why it would be hard to change anything. Too many mouths are sucking on that huge government tit and will not let it go without a fight. How's that for imagery?

If that's the case why aren't the conservatives loudly fighting this waste of our money like they are others? It's a tradgedy that we continue the drug war. Wastes a bunch of money and lives.

And your sarcasm didn't go by the wayside believer as much as it went way over my head.

lso, I wouldn't call the drug war "ineffective" but rather not nearly as effective as it perhaps needs to be to justify the expense.

How has it been effective at all?

And the reason the drug war will continue to go on is because of this bitch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Leonhart . GW appointed her and Obama kept her because he's a pussy. "She has also spoken in favor of the Eighteenth Amendment and suggested a federal ban on production, possession, transportation, sale, and consumption of alcohol"

That's not the type of person who's going to be making rational decisions about anything.

My guess is that you don't hear much of an outcry on this because it's like pork. Everybody wants some and we all know that those members of Congress, regardless of party affiliation, who bring dollars to their districts are praised to the heavens.

I've read this whole thread, and I still have yet to see one legitimate reason why its prohibition should continue. Maybe I'm crazy for thinking prohibitive laws ought to be logical and ought to be proven as necessary.

My uncle, a member of the LAPD's drug unit, agrees that drugs should be made legal.

I feel the same O-Trap. Anytime I try to have this discussion with people there's always at least one who apparently doesn't like facts and figures and logical trains of thought and just keeps saying stuff like "so you think meth should be legal really?" thinking that their judgemental tone somehow makes them more correct or something.

Let's hear another awesome quote from the DEA head:

In 2011, the Washington Post reported that "994 people younger than 18 were killed in drug-related violence between late 2006 and late 2010" and that "n 2009, the last year for which there is data, 1,180 children were killed, half in shootings." In response to these statistics, Leonhart declared that while it "may seem contradictory, the unfortunate level of violence is a sign of success in the fight against drugs.”

Yeah, 1,000 dead children sure sounds like your policies are working wonderfully. When you make it a crime to deal with an item that really isn't dangerous you make it so that dangerous, criminal people deal with it. All we need to do is look at prohibition of alcohol. Perfectly legal product that wasn't destroying society despite it's negatives...then we make it illegal and would you look at that tons of violent crime in relation to that industry! I imagine we'd see a similar transformation in the drug trade, as far as marijuana goes I'm certain.