to the War Zone area, if we want to continue it in earnest. I appreciate the civil and open clash of philosophies presented here, but continuing them, in this thread, will detract from it's primary focus.

LisaN, stealing, abusing, and most of the stuff you mentioned as effects of drug abuse are illegal on their own. If someone gets stoned and beats his wife, robs a store, kills someone...hold him responsible for his actions.

But, I have known many potheads (pot is nothing like the government makes it out to be) over the years. The only things they cared about were saying dumb stuff and eating wierd stuff. They never beat anyone, stole anything, or killed anyone. There is a reason marijuana is called a "gateway" drug.

That is that once people realize it isn't as bad as the government's made it out to be...they no longer believe anything they've been told. We can't stop drug use by lying about its effects. We need to be honest about it and give people the choice. I would guess that most folks probably would never try hard drugs. Marijuana is another matter...but, marijuana is not addictive and has never killed anyone (by itself). Tell them that smoking doobies will give you cancer, cause you to eat hi-carb foods, will cause you to say stuff that makes you look stupid, and will cause you to sleep with the ugliest people. But, stop telling people that it will make you go crazy and hack up your parents. That last one was actually the basis of an anti-marijuana film in the 30s.

Prior to 1938, marijuana was legal. Prior to the 20s, cocaine was legal and in fact was one of the original ingridients (Cocaine, Caffeine, and Carbonated Water) in Coca-Cola. All they've done is replace the cocaine with Sugar. Methamphetamines were legal up until the 1950s-70s or so.

Here is the worst part...Marijuana is in the highest category...higher even than cocaine, methamphetamines, and heorine. Heorine can be obtained under certain circumstances with a perscription...but, marijuana can't no matter what. Yet, we all know that potheads are laid back dumbasses, while crackheads and speed freaks are the ones out commiting the crimes.

But, this doesn't really change the fact that we shouldn't ban something because it might cause you to commit crime...we should be tough on crime. If a crackhead robs someone to get his fix...throw him in jail for robbery, not for drug possession. If a methhead kills someone, then fry them for murder.

The point that I was making wasn't what to do with these people once they commit a crime, but the fact that crimes are committed as a result of drug use and so drug abuse if far from the victimless activity that Alleine maintains it is.
As far as holding those who commit crimes because of drugs accountable for their actions, personally I'd rather prevent the crime in the first place by making it as difficult as possible for people to get their hands on drugs. I'm sure the victims might agree here. The meth head who murders someone while high most likely wouldn't have had they been sober and in their right mind. I'm sure that you wouldn't want to be a victim of a drug-related crime or see one of your friends or family members become a victim. Which would you rather have; the satisfaction of seeing someone who murdered, robbed or beat a family member "get theirs" or have your family member or friend still around or not suffering from the emotional trauma of being beaten, abused or robbed?

Lisa, not all drugs cause violence. Marijuana and Ecstacy come to mind. I have known some very nice potheads and x-users. Granted they were dumb as rocks, but that is another matter. Getting drugs is very easy...even though they are illegal...so, I don't believe that making them illegal causes any decrease in user-related violence. But, making them illegal creates a black market and ablack market breeds dealer-related violence.

Just look at prohibition. Do you see Budweiser and Coors drivers shooting it out ??? No...because beer is legal and regulated. Thus, eliminating the black market. Similarly, if you could buy joints in 7-11, there would be no reason to sell them on street corners and thus there'd be no reason to shoot rival dealers...since there would be no rival dealers.

I truly do not believe that making it illegal has prevented a single crime. But, prohibition has created a black market which breeds violent rivalry. If we legalized drugs and regulated them heavily...we could probably reduce drug use and eliminate the black market. As odd as it may sound, legalization would likely decrease violence and reduce drug use.

As it currently works...Don Carlos in Colombia makes drugs...then sends his people to Mexico, where they haul it into America. For every shipment caught...dozens get through. These drugs are sold to street dealers who then sell them to kids, getting them hooked. It is impossible to stop drugs from making it across our borders. So, we need to focus on what we can do...and that is to regualte the hell out of them and to make it hard to abuse them. But, at the same time...make the black market unprofitable, so as to eliminate or seriously reduce it.

This means legalizing drugs and heavily regulating them:

1) Absolutely no sales to minors. No fines, no second chances. You sell to a minor and they yank your lisence permanently.

2) Controls over the strength and quality of drugs. There are foreign substances in some drugs that can cause even more violent reactions. We need to keep these out and reduce the potency.

There are a number of other controls possible also. But, we need to do something that has a viable chance of reducing drug use and that something is not prohibition.

As for victimization:

1) Several years ago my father stopped at 7-11 to get a Pepsi and ended up with a gun in his back. Fortunately, he didn't get shot in the process. They never did catch that guy either.
2) My grandmother was mugged a few years back.
3) Someone broke into my parents' home a while back and stole a laptop, VCR, and other equipment.

I cannot say for sure that any of these are drug-related. But, I know that prohibition didn't stop them and never will.

The strongest opponents of drug legalization are the wealthy big-time pushers and organized crime lords themselves. It is in their economic self-interest to keep drugs illegal, so that they can be unregulated and untaxed. Sacrificing lower-level pushers and an occasional shipment is a cost of business to them that is far less than the costs of legalization - you don't mind losing 10 million in street value in a bust if it only cost you 50K to produce the drugs. Terrorist groups that rely on drug money to survive would be particularly annoyed if drugs were legal and under government control.

So, if you support keeping drugs illegal, you are unwittingly supporting drug lords and terrorists - there is simply no way around this besides closing your eyes to the truth.

Less than 2% of people who DON'T use drugs say that it is because they are illegal. (I happen to be one of those rare folks - I might try them if they were legal. As it is, alcohol is plenty for me, although virtually everyone I know, saint or sinner, has tried drugs at some time - except for me.) The rest view it as an ethical or health issue; these feelings would not change with legalization.

Among the costs of having drugs be illegal is abuse of police power. In Dallas, there is a huge, ongoing scandal involving the police planting powered sheetrock (gypsum) on suspects and then convicting them of possession. A number of these convicts remain in jail because prosecutors are resisting releasing the details of who they are. I have buddies who are Dallas cops and they hang their heads in shame when the issue comes up.

Lisa N - one thing before I leave this debate....The people that you say are victims of drug abusers are unfortunate. They are just as unfortunate as as victims of alcoholics. In fact, there are studies that link much more abusive behaviour from alcoholics than from those who smoke, say, marijuana. Alcolhol, however is legal.

My point is, that by your logic, alcohol should be illegal as well. It is proven to kill it's abusers, cause violent behaviour and is addictive. But...it's not illegal. And I will bet you that even the most causual wine consumer (the ones who cook with it only and not even drink it) would balk at another prohibition.

My vision for society is choice. I do not want my freedoms taken away as they are now. You say the spouse, parent, brother sister, uncle is a victim of an substance abuser? Actually, they are a victim of themselves. It as disorder called co-dependency. It is the psychological need to be with an abusive person because of several reasons. These people need help, yes, with their own brains. They do not know how to exercise their choice to not be abused. If children are involoved, this is very sad. Just as sad for a child of an alcoholic as it is for a crack-head. Taxes would help provide homes for them.

People who use alcolohol or drugs should be held accountable for violence and crime just as those who don't abuse. There are people who are murderers and killers that don't touch any substances. Dahmer, Manson....

Many folks have never really been down the roads that would give them the experiences needed to be truly insightful on this subject. Not that I am saying you are naiive, Lisa N.

LOL, I see no one touched my point on prostitution above...

Anyway...

After thinking about it, I am sorry that I posted my opinions here. I beleive I am radical in my ideals and really don't wish to enrage anyone that comes here to innocently read about nutrition. I am not apologizing for my opionions, just for exercising them here. I did not want to start a flame war.

my political ramblings about drugs and such belong on political boards, not here. very sorry.

ciao

p.s. cc48510 and gotbeer, thanks for so eloquently stating your support for my opinions

They can't beat Atkins so they are going to beat up on everyone else??

We were watching CNN the other night and there was a brief story about passing laws to force fast food to make healthier foods. The critics are not happy with the salads, grilled chicken sandwiches, better oil for frying, veggie burgers.... typical low-fat offerings...they want more.

I say ban the buns!!!

Ah... there's already a thread. I just didn't scroll down far enough.