From the Cato Institute web page.

The War on Drugs is really a war on our Bill of Rights. This gives the bureaucrats power over our individual lives, they can snoop into our lives, steal more of our personal things, that we have worked hard for. This just is another way for a group of thugs to mess with us.

Help Starve A Feeding Bureaucrat
Make Money, Not War
Taxes Should Be Voluntary Only

They disguised the RAVE act under the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act.
The Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act (also called the "RAVE Act"),which was attached to the AMBER Alert bill, passed both the House and Senate on April 10th. Sadly, the RAVE Act was added to the AMBER Alert
bill conferenc report at the very last minute by Senator Biden(D-DE), its origina sponsor. The AMBER Alert bill creates a system for responding t child abduction. It has nothing to do with drug policy. The RAV Act had not passed even a single committee in the House or Senate this year. One senator's pet issue made a mockery of the Democrati process - becoming law without any public hearing or opportunity for input whatsoever.
You should be aware that your letters and faxes clearly had an effect. (FYI - you sent Congress 13,000 faxes this week alone!!)
For example, the word "rave" was removed from the version of the bill that passed. Eliminating such blatant discrimination is a victory for our continued freedom of speech. Also, the original bill suggested that prosecutors should view the sale of water and the
presence of glowsticks or massage oil as evidence of
drug use. These ludicrous "findings" were completely removed thanks to you.
President Bush will sign this child abduction bill which means the RAVE Act will become law as well. We will be working with the legislators who opposed this provision - such as Senators Durbin, Kennedy and Leahy and Representatives Conyers and Scott - for its
repeal. In the meantime, however, it is up to all
of us to be the watchdogs of its enforcement.

Attorney General John Ashcroft will have to make
decisions about it enforcement priority among the many public safety issues theDepartment of Justice handles. He must be held responsible when he implements this scheme. We want him to know that he is not free to
shut down our dance clubs, our festivals and our
freedoms. We willbe watching the activities of law enforcement and prosecutors, and we will act when our rights are violated. You can help us by faxing
Attorney General Ashcroft here.

http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=1581

We already HAVE troops in Colombia (learn how to spell it) and Peru. Get a clue, Sherlock. Get your news from sources other than Fox News for once.

...about Barry and the Boys (Barry Seal). Barry Seal was a C.I.A. contract agent who was probably the most famous drug-runner Pilot of all time.

He flew aircraft out of Mena Arkansas, when Clinton was Governor, for Oliver Norths Drug Ring operating out of the White House (under the kindly auspices of George the First).

The American Elites use the drug laws to eliminate competition to their Drug Operations.

The C.I.A.s Inspector Generals Report clearly states that they were involved in running drugs to finance illegal "off the books" operations.

Do the homework and you will be astounded.

Start at copvcia.com.

Essentially, Drug legalization and illegality are represented in the bill of rights under
the Tenth (X) amendment.
The powers not delagated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states,
are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The federal gevernment has no jurisdiction to legislate drug laws.
It would be up to a vote of the people of a certain state to vote for or against legalization.
This is why they had to pass a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol (prohibition)
With States rights we could come to a "happy medium"
Therefore, certain drugs could be legal in california, and illegal in nevada, etc etc
If people loved a drug so much...they could move to a place where it was legal.

The government fails to goto war on the drugs of corportate america.
(Cheney used to be CEO of Serle)...does that mean he was a "drug kingpin"?
for every "illegal" drug we have... there is a "legal" counterpart
Heroin===Oxycotin
Speed===Ritalin
Marijuana===Marinol
Extacy==Prozac
the list is continuous.........

Legalize all drugs, and tax accordingly.
Make people take a 8 hr course in the dangers of drug addiction and
issue them a purchase card. according to an age limit
and watch the drug crime disappear (just as it did with capone's bootleg liquor)
or we can go with the "status quo"
and relive the prohibition crime wave.

If put to a vote, drug legalization wouldn't have even a faint chance of passing. To the contrary, the vast majority of Americans would vote it down and resoundingly.

You've got a better chance of electing Ralph Nader or Al Sharpton to the Presidency than you do of enacting drug legalization.

I think I'll have to side with the legalize drug crowd on this one. Drug abuse and addiction are not solitary crimes by any means, but more often than not, non-users are harmed due to the economics of drugs.
Addicts will do anything to get the money for a fix. Drug dealers will protect their "turf" leading to all kinds of mayhem in those communities. The victims are almost always non-users.
In addition alot of money is being wasted on a war which could go to treatment facilities.
Make no mistake, as a recovering addict I have no interest in coddling criminal drug addicts. As much as I liked to see legalization and regulation and treatment opportunities I'd also like to see serious penalties for those abusing this system and continuing on with criminal activity.
Addicts may have a disease but that in no way absolves them from accountability.

...Founding Fathers preferred a Republic to rule by ignorant mobs i.e., Democracy. I am not a snob but I am a realist. While I believe firmly that all should have equal rights that does not mean that I am so naive as to believe all have equal abilities.

In theory, although it has not worked out in practice as of late. in a Republic our Representatives should be informing themselves as to which policy is the best policy not that which is the most popular. It is their responsibility to both follow the Constitution and to enact those policies which are of greatest benefit to the People as a whole. Not to enact laws which are feelgood remedies to a problem of individual behavior of no direct threat to another.

Further, Drug Laws don't work. Prohibition did not work. Where there is a demand for a product there will be a supplier. This is basic economics taught in any Freshman Economics Course. Even in Muslim countries where Drug Running and Sales is an automatic Death Sentence you still have those who will risk all for the profit. They are also generally much more repressive in other areas as well.

Prohibition of Alcohol brought about Al, Scarface, Capone, "Lucky Luciano", Meyer Lansky (the mob was not all Italian as myth would have - there were equivalents, less known, in the Irish Community, the Jewish Community, and the Northeastern Protestant Community), Legs Diamond, Joe Kennedy (the Irish Mob but tied in with the Gambino’s), and others. Drug Prohibition has brought us the Cali Cartel, C.I.A. Drug Running (See link below for excerpt of C.I.A. Inspector Generals Report.), The Bloods, The Crips, and others. When you try to legislate morality as in the case of prohibiting the use of an intoxicant, or any desirable commodity for that matter - Diamonds for Example, you create a Black Market. Someone will rise to supply that market. Where it is illegal to do so the people who take over that market will by their nature be criminals. The argument that drugs breed crime is false. Drug Laws and Prohibition breeds crime.

The kind of Totalitarian Fascist Drug War that Bush Sycophant advocates not only will not work it is Dead on Arrival. It is antithetical to the Concepts of a Free Society upon which this nation was establishe. The kind of NAZI/Fascist State that Bush Sycophant wants would make the Third Reich look like anarchy. However, his wishes for a “real” drug war will not be done. The Drug Trade in America reaches into the highest levels of government. Drug Laws as they currently exist serve only to protect the illegal monopolies of some of our country’s wealthiest and most influential individuals. They are selectively enforced and documented corruption runs rampant through Border Patrol, Customs, and C.I.A. - and those are just the best documented. Danny Casolaro an investigative reporter began investigating those links back in the 1980’s. He referred to the organization as “The Octopus”. He wound up dead. His body was found Roman Style in a Bathtub with his wrists slit. It was ruled a suicide but like many convenient suicides he gave no indication beforehand. He was a Reporter at the top of his game pursuing a story which he thought would “make his name”. Two days before his death he telephoned a friend, family as well, and, although tired, was exultant that he was on the edge of a major break in the story. He then committed suicide? If you are curious do a search on both Danny Casolaro and “The Octopus”.

Drug Laws have not eliminated,or even reduced, the flow of Drugs into the U.S.. Drugs are more readily available, and cheaper, than they were during the “Summer of Love” during the height of the Hippie/Anti-Vietnam War movement. Recently we passed a "Milestone"; there are now over TWO MILLION people behind bars in the United States. One Fourth of the worlds Prison Population resides in United States Penal Institutions. The vast majority are nonviolent Drug Users who represent a threat only to themselves. It is time for an intelligent policy in keeping with the ideals of a Free People. Legalization is just such a policy. In a Free Society individuals are responsible for their own behavior.


You will not find reference to the illegal ties between the high reaches of our government, and the wealthy elites in so-called mainstream Publications. The following links are to articles which I believe to be generally reliable. However, I do accept responsibility for any errors they may contain. When you start dealing in the murky world of High Level Corruption you are dealing with people with the resources to silence and suppress information contrary to their interests. Having said that the following are among the most credible and best researched out there.

The C.I.A. And Drugs - An Excerpt From The C.I.A. Inspector General’s Report: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ciadrugs/xtract.html

C.I.A., Drugs, And Wall Street: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ciadrugs/dontblink.html

The Crimes of Mena (CIA, Bush, Clinton, North Drug Running): http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MENA/mena.html

The Bush-Cheney Drug Empire: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ciadrugs/bush-cheney-drugs.html

It should have read: "...I do NOT accept responibility for errors..."

I think the war on drugs is not very effective but, what is the alternative? Ever heard the slogan "don't point out a problem unless you've got suggestions on how to fix it."? what should we do, just stop fighting drugs all together and just hope for the best?

On a personal note, I am a former drug addict, I won't say of what. And, I blame the public for my problem, it was not my fault, I was basically coached into becoming a drug addict by the public. At least our government is trying right?

...is a Fraud.

Let me make is stark and clear: There are a lot of very wealthy and influential people getting filthier Rich off of the War on Drugs.

The imposition on the Liberties and Rights of Free Citizens is unacceptable and it does not work.

The solution is education and EFFECTIVE treatment. Remove the user and you remove the Market. Remove the Market and their is no reason to produce the Product. It really is that simple. You do not need Storm Troopers Dressed in black trampling over people's rights. You do not need DEA agents armed to the teeth crashing down doors, and too often the wrong ones as they are incompetent, in the dead of night.

Such programs do exist. NARCONON is probably the best as they have the best numbers - 80 Percent never return to Drugs. That is about reversed from most other programs that can only cite about 20 Percent after 5 years.

"You do not need Storm Troopers Dressed in black trampling over people's rights. You do not need DEA agents armed to the teeth crashing down doors, and too often the wrong ones as they are incompetent"

I thought we actually agreed on something and were finding common ground and then you went and acted the fool again.

Using terms like "stormtroopers dressed in black" is childish.
And how typical is it that you've branded ALL DEA agents as incompetent. Your post shows your true feelings on the subject. You don't give a rats ass about the drug problem or those who are affected by it. All you care about is being able to use the failings of the systems measures to combat it as a flag to wave. The last thing you want is an end to the drug war and a decrease in drug usage. You'd have no more ammo. You and yours are always willing to sacrifice the lives and safety of those "downtrodden, oppressed masses" as long as their suffering helps illustrate your cause.
At the end of the day you DON'T want a better world. You want continual strife so your cabal of hateful, fear-ridden schizophrenics can have a target to spitefully attack.
You and yours are simple murderous monsters.

And by the way, Narconon is an abomination. And I know of what I speak.

...however there are too many incidents on record of Police/DEA raids that hit the wrong house and innocent people were hurt and in a few cases killed. I am not laughing.

As for Narconon I somehow doubt the thousands of people helped by the program would agree. I know a few and they all have positive things to say about the program and how it worked for them.

Every program has it's naysayers, it is however, in my admittedly limited knowledge effective.

What you really have with druggies would be 'disabled people.' They're no longer able to function at their full capacity. Holding a job gets to be a challenge. Emergency rooms are overrun with them.

Whichever policy we implement must result in markedly fewer druggies. I don't think legalization does that.

I don't know what the big deal is. Guns do more harm than drugs. At least when someone consumes drugs the harm is to the person doing the drugs. I say who cares? If my neighbor wants to toke up. I don't care. If people were more educated about them. If they weren't such a taboo, less people would want to use them.
I say legalize and tax. What's more infuriating is the false information that we are provided with. It is so biased. They have conducted studies in Europe proving that cell phones cause more brain damage.

...have agreed with you. However the Drug War has not worked. All it has done is infringe unnecessarily on the rights of non-drug users.

Locking people up does not reduce the problem.

All we have gotten out of it is more people in lock-up.

Education and Treatment are, in my not terribly humble, opinion the key to solving the problem.

Legalization opens the door for the problem to be addressed directly. So long as it remains a major crime you create a black market and make people afraid to turn themselves in for treatment.

As long as their drug use does not affect another person's ability to enjoy their right to life, liberty, or property it should not be any business of the governments. They have other more important things to do.

I think it was Lord McCaulay when he was Viceroy of India who commented:

"When it is not neccessary to do something then nothing is what you must do."

There is a big difference between druggies and people who use drugs occasionally. People with addictive personalities will just find something else to be addicted to.
There are plenty of people who smoke pot and live perfectly functional lives. Why should it be my business what anybody else wants to put in their bodies?

Why should you care what someone else puts in their bodies? You shouldn't. Because their body is none of your buisness, true. But, consider the hows and wheres the drugs they are addicted to come from. I see that your comment seems to mostly lean towards marijuana, and I have mixed feelings about that issue as well. But, hard drugs and the scene that MUST be present in order for people to get them is what my problem is. Do you have kids? I Do. I don't want my children anywhere near the environment that lends itself to drug distribution. Face it, the people who do such things are not responsible. I will admit, your point of view sounds very similar to mine when I was younger(18-22ish). I didn't see that their is a much bigger picture to consider and you will see that someday I'm sure. So, why should you care what someone else puts in their bodies? You shouldn't. And I couldn't care less either but there is much more to story than that, and the illegal drug scene effects lives well outside its immediate vicinity. And I will not allow that scene to come anywhere near my chidren because the fact is, illegal drugs and the people involved are not doing our society any good at all. It is very couterproductive.

"There are plenty of people who smoke pot and live perfectly functional lives. Why should it be my business what anybody else wants to put in their bodies? "
There may be a few but by and large, heavy pot smokers are in a state of inertia. Sorta, vaguely useless. Somewhat functional but easil replaced. That's just a fact.
And as far as drugs only effecting the user. Right.
Believe me, when I was strung out, I would have gladly "effected" you in order to get well.
That said, I still think drugs should be decriminalized, as it's the commerce of drugs that leads to the majority of harm to non users.

Well, enough of that. I'm off to the Dodger/Giants game.

I agree with Fresca very much. The drug scene as a whole is not as cut and dried as it was made to seem in the earlier post. Bottom line, it is negative in nature, therefore, will have a negative effect on it's surroundings which happen to be my neighberhood. Heavy pot smokers? Again, the scene comes along with it. Maybe not directly but, most pot dealers I ever knew had other things they were involved in, or knew someone who get this or that. It is all intertwined and equally negative and counterproductive.

The question of legalization would 1-make it so it is even less my business what you put in your body, which is a positive thing and 2-take the "dealer out of the picture". I can see that if drugs were legalized, the government and anti drug agencies would unleash the same kind of attacks on drugs as other agencies did against tobacco and are showing positive results. I agree that legalization, although it may be impossible to convince the public, may be the best option

...that even with stiff drug laws as the poster above mentions there is widespread drug use.

Reality again - Americans have an independent streak and a tendency to do what they want regardless of what the guv'mint thinks.

People who would not use drugs themselves frequently will not turn people in because it is against their principles.

Got Revenooers?

Drugs are varying forms of anti social behaviour.
Cigarettes for example tend to increace the health bill (for those countries who have public health care) and reduces the life span of the user.
some other drugs promote violence in the user and thereby statistically increace the amount of violence.
Some make the user less active or ruin their memory and there by make people who cant function properly in society and whatever ramifications there are for that.

Therefore if we legalized all of the drugs it is likely the average standard of living in the country would drop substantially.

Also the nature of "dependance" substances is very conducive to crime.

Look it still should be up to the individual to take responsability for his or her actions. And I really do know quite a few functional pot smokers. Among them a child therapist, a production assistant, a hospital administrator, an art director, a photographer. I could go on.
I choose not to smoke, quite frankly I don't care for the effect it has on me. But I think I should be able to smoke if I wanted to. I occasionally smoke cigarettes and drink. Yes I have seen the tobacco ads. I must smoke about a pack every three or four months. If I ever got cancer it'll be my responsability, I'm not going to sue Phillip Morris.
Instead of blaming the dealer, and the drugs people have to assume responsability for their choices. People need to be educated on what things do and then make an educated choice.

You are right. I don't have kids yet. But when I do I'll be sure to talk to them about drugs myself. I don't want my kid at 15 or 16 to be doing things with strangers.
I did talk about pot mostly because people don't seem to think of it as a drug. For me it is.

...I don't think it is neccessarily a given that drug use or crime would increase.

Prior to the enacment of many of the draconian drug laws we have now the problem was much less than it is now. To some degree I think we are dealing with the "forbidden fruit" syndrome.

As well much of the crime we associated with drug use is spawned by the very laws which are intended to reduce it i.e., when you create a Black Market you force prices up by restricting supply. Basic Supply and Demand Curves will show you that all other things remaining constant a reduction in supply will result in an increase in prices (and profits). Restricting supply by making it illegal forces up the price increasing the incentive for the criminally inclined to "take up the Profession".

There are no good solutions just trade offs. To my mind legalization, education and treatment seem to be the most viable. Ever tighter restrictions on everyone's freedom to keep a few people from doing something which harms mainly the user is, to me, unacceptable.

When I want some beer, I go into a supermarket or liquor
store and put money on the counter. The product has been
quality controlled, taxed and sold after verifying my age to
be appropriate. Just alcohol is available. no cocaine, heroin
speed or downers. No DMT, LSD or mushrooms are sold there.
No ecstasy, or any other designer drugs. Only content by analysis products.
However.
When I go to my local connection, I can get all of the above.
All I need is cash. I don't have to be 21 or even 18 because the person providing the goods doesn't have to check my age to
sell me a product ( in this instance pot; California's #1 money crop) that may or may not be contaminated or adulterated.
Now trade places with me, your 16 year old son or daughter
and tell me you would rather keep this herb on the black
market.

I think it is important to realize that when people say "if drugs are legalized then society will become drug addicts"....did that happen when prohibition was repealed? No.

People in this society choose not to drink because they have other priorities in thier lives.
Most drugs are available to people through friends or other "connections"

If drugs were legal, do you think the vast majority of people would run out and get some Heroin?
Probally not, because if someone wanted heroin right now, with a little help, they could find it.

People choose not to do "hard drugs" because they are educated to the facts of seeing addicts on the street as "shells" of a human. They are educated through other various programs (books, documentaries, teachers, parents, etc etc). People see the effects of drugs and CHOOSE not to
use them.

As a side note....
An average prisoner costs the state (ie the taxpayers) $40,000 per year.

Why wouldnt they give a person subsidised housing for say $20,000 per year
Use the other money for a treatment program and job training.

If you have a "house" for rehabilitation with say, 10 people and two counselors.....
You have 400,000 per year to pay for the training, treatment, and the counsellors...

This is instead of incarcerating these people, where they will have...
No counselling
No treatment
and become better criminals.

(Im not even mentioning the cost of police and federal agencies to enforce these laws)

We should think about how OUR money is spent...
The taxpayers are paying for it

...I don't think it is neccessarily a given that drug use or crime would increase.

- oddly this is the one area where I support legalization.. In fact you guys should use this argument..
- Aside from the cost as mentioned by systemfailure - If you make a drug illegal (like smoking for example) you all of a sudden make a certain segment of society "law breakers" even though they might usually have been peopel who had great respect for the law. At some point the law itself becomes the problem. however that is only true when the costs of the law outweigh the costs of the drugs.

Prior to the enacment of many of the draconian drug laws we have now the problem was much less than it is now. To some degree I think we are dealing with the "forbidden fruit" syndrome.

- I jsut think distribution is more efficient now. - also it is more obvious now. I think it is a reasonable assumption (failing statistical evidence) that legalization will lower costs and increase useage.

all other things remaining constant a reduction in supply will result in an increase in prices (and profits).

- prices.. not nessercerily profits. the reason why profits tend to be good in illegal industries is the result of many people not entering the market due to a "law abiding nature" and others asking for a certain risk premium.

To my mind legalization, education and treatment seem to be the most viable.

- Again failing evidence to the contrary it is almost certain this will lower prices and increase usage both interms of people and in total quantity. This will cause all the associated costs as mentioned previously.

A person using a bad drug is like a man running around on foot on the moterway. It is illegal because its stupid - (there is no rational explination except the thrill), once you are doing it its hard to get off (and there is no guarantee you will be able to) and you will probably disrupt traffic and cost people money... but in the end you are by far the most likely to die from it.

I note that alcohol causes a huge amount of damage to society. however the reason why we dont ban alcohol is it covers almost all of society. To criminalize it would be to criminalize the society itself. that is why I assume it did not work.

I think it is important to realize that when people say "if drugs are legalized then society will become drug addicts"....did that happen when prohibition was repealed? No.

- er.. system failure.. what world are you living in? obviously not earth... yes it did.. how many peopel die per year from alcohol related incidents? It leaves your tiny war in iraq for dead by orders of magnitude.

People in this society choose not to drink because they have other priorities in thier lives.

-some didnt .. Im sure some wont use drugs.. "wooppeee" for them.

Probally not, because if someone wanted heroin right now, with a little help, they could find it.

- If heroine was legal they would advertise it. then they wouldnt need help to find it. for example YOU might know where to get heroine.. but I dont. If there were adds on TV then I would and there would always be that temptation (I guess) to go and try some.

People choose not to do "hard drugs" because they are educated to the facts of seeing addicts on the street as "shells" of a human.

- why would that stop me? I dont think I would be adicted. honestly. I imagine many other people believe like me.. some of them are mistaken.

As a side note....
An average prisoner costs the state (ie the taxpayers) $40,000 per year.

- yeah expensive.. good reason for my point at the top.

This is instead of incarcerating these people, where they will have...
No counselling
No treatment
and become better criminals.

-yes our prisons suck.. dont you think we should adress the prisions as well? considering you accept the point above. My sugestion is *braces himself for howls of outrage* a "do what it takes" to remove criminal intent from "serious offenders".

"Druggies are disabled people."

Oh, so you NEVER drink alcohol, caffeine, or aspartame? You, sir, are an imbecile.

Having to change your MO is a bitch, ain't it?

The above post is mine. Aren't I clever?

Scottie, whats your point?
You went to great lengths to argue for legalization of drugs in the first part of your rant,
Then, when you were addressing my post, you changed your views,
What gives?
Anyone else reading this article and posts....did you understand what the hell schitzo scottie
was talking about?]

Scottie....a question...
Do you do Heroin? No?
Why not?
If it was legal, would you do it then?
Why not?

Thank you for your support.
I suggest a mental health outreach center...............

That is because it is a Schitzophrenic issue.

I am saying that there are SIGNIFICANT costs to legalizing drugs. there are costs to policing them too.

A) I dont do heroine.
If it was legal I might
There is no "why not?" because I dont say "no" the reason why I dont do it is because it is illegal. I might, for example, take it for home medicinal reasons. Personally I have no doubt in my own self control. But I do doubt everyone elses..

When the government makes somthing legal all of a sudden peoples opinions tend to shift almost immediatly in favour of that thing. Anyway heroine will become somthing that people who you cant critisize do.

I am saying that there is an argument for legalizing it but that you are HUGELY underestimating the costs associated with it.

OK my opinion...... If I was making policy I would not legalize any of the hard drugs.. I might think about legalizing soft ones (after a risk benifit analysis of course) but I would tax them to the point where a black market "almost" forms to keep people paying through the nose for them. Basically paying the government for all the problems they are going to cause.

Your problem is that you dont see that the world IS Schitzophrenic. Having an absolute view like "legalize all drugs" is seldom the smart way to deal with things. Just like making drugs like alcohol etc illegal doesn't work very well.

Schitzophrenia and Hypocracy are not in themselves bad things...
Basically if you cant make the case for both sides of an argument you are obviously not going to make any meaningful policy suggestions and if you are effected by facts around specific situations then sometimes you will change your mind and deal with situations differently..

Hi Scottie (and everyone else):

Well the question of course is where do I begin. Since the actual argument and supporting data is quite extensive I am going to limit myself to a couple of comments and a couple of Links that lay out the case for legalization and against the current Drug War Fiasco in painful, but well written, detail and I see no point in reinventing the wheel when there is such an available wealth of information.
The main points I would make in my own voice are:
Yes Drugs are debilitating. Because I support their legalization does not mean I support their use. I just believe from having looked at the issue over a number of years that legalization is the most sensible route. I am not going to convince you in one post and don’t intend to try. I’ll just say I started out as anti-legalization and felt betrayed when Wm. F. Buckley came out in favor of legalization. However, time and reading and cogitation have brought me to the same position.

One comment you made I want to respond to in particular is:

“- I jsut think distribution is more efficient now. - also it is more obvious now. I think it is a reasonable assumption (failing statistical evidence) that legalization will lower costs and increase usage. “

Pick up a copy of a Pre Drug Prohibition Sears or Montgomery Ward Catalog Reproduction. One of the key ingredients in a lot of the off the shelf nostrums was Opium. Readily available.
If a Market exists someone will find a way to supply that Market. It matters not whether it is legal or illegal.
If you dig into the historical record you will find that the biggest boosters of Drug Prohibition were “The National Brewers Association” and the various large Pharmaceutical companies. Their motivation is obvious - eliminate the competition through legislation.
Heroin was originally developed as a safe “non-addictive” alternative to Opium as a Pain Killer. I forget which Pharmaceutical Company it was but it was one of the majors.
LSD was also developed by a large Pharmaceutical Concern - developed and marketed by Sandoz Laboratories.
The reason I mention those is that some of the worst drugs currently available are legal Prescription Drugs. Here is an amusement if you care to take a dare: Next time you are at the Library Pick up a copy of the PDR (Physicians Desk Reference) it gives all the common side effects of both legal and illegal drugs. Compare the side effects of your choice of Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox, Welbutrin or any of the commonly used “Psychiatric Drugs” to the side affects of A. Marijuana and B. Heroin. I think you will be astounded. Hint: Heroin has fewer adverse side effects than Prozac. Don’t believe me? Look for yourself. You’ll be astounded I think.

I could go on but then this post would never get read at all. Take a look at the below references. I think you will find most of your objections answered. Whether to your satisfaction or not is for you to judge. I would particularly point to the first one as it is the most wide ranging. The PDF from the Mises Institute is also particularly good. There are many others available the ones I listed are just a sampling.

Cato Institute:
Policy Analysis No. 121
Thinking About Drug Legalization by James Ostrowski
Abstract: A detailed analysis of the cost of the current War on Drugs, the affect of drugs on Society, the likelihood of success and the affects on non drug users. Makes comparison to Prohibition showing the increase in shooting deaths during prohibition followed by a rapid decline after it’s repeal.
Excerpt: “In 1988, I wrote to Vice President George Bush, then head of the South Florida Drug Task Force; to Education Secretary William Bennett; to Assistant Secretary of State for Drug Policy Ann Wrobleski; to White House drug policy adviser Dr. Donald I. McDonald; and to the public information directors of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, General Accounting Office, National Institute of Justice, and National Institute on Drug Abuse. None of these officials was able to cite any study that demonstrated the beneficial effects of drug prohibition when weighed against its costs.”
Link: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa121.html

Commonsense For Drug Policy: Top Drug Warrior Distortions:
Abstract: An point by point analysis and clarification of the facts surrounding the arguments for continued Prohibition via distortions made in justification of a continued Drug War. Thoroughly footnoted with embedded reference links to greater detail.
Excerpt: “From 1972 to 1978, eleven states decriminalized marijuana possession (covering one-third of the US population) and 33 other states reduced punishment to probation with record erased after six months to one year. Yet, after 1978 marijuana use steadily declined for over a decade. Decriminalization did not increase marijuana use.”
Link to Article: http://www.csdp.org/research/dwdist.htm#distortion2
Link to their Reference Page: Many downloadable PDFs: http://csdp.org/research/
Home Page: http://www.csdp.org/

Dan Burton Comment in U.S. Congress: http://www.thememoryhole.org/drugs/burton-drugs.htm

Excerpt: “After an anonymous narcotics detective finished giving his prepared statement, Republican Representative Dan Burton--the head of the Committee--bemoaned the fact that the War on Drugs isn't working, hasn't worked, and apparently never will work. He then puts forth the idea that perhaps the situation can best be dealt with by taking profits out of illicit drugs. He won't say "legalization," but it's obvious that the only way to get the criminal element out of the drug trade is to make the drug trade legal.

Please understand that you are not about to read a forceful, logical argument for legalization. Burton is obviously ill-informed on the issue of illegal drugs and isn't familiar with the arguments (and counter-arguments) for various forms of drug-law reform.

His adversary in this impromptu debate, Tom Carr--director of the Baltimore-Washington High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area--is likewise clueless. His arguments for the current Prohibition range from muddled to absolutely absurd and surreal.”

Policing for Profit the Drug Wars Hidden Economic Agenda: University of Chicago Law Review
Abstract: During the 25 years of its existence, the "War on Drugs" has transformed the criminal justice system, to the point where the imperatives of drug law enforcement now drive many of the broader legislative, law enforcement, and corrections policies in counterproductive ways. One significant impetus for this transformation has been the enactment of forfeiture laws which allow law enforcement agencies to keep the lion's share of the drug-related assets they seize. Another has been the federal law enforcement aid program, revised a decade ago to focus on assisting state anti-drug efforts. Collectively these financial incentives have left many law enforcement agencies dependent on drug law enforcement to meet their budgetary requirements, at the expense of alternative goals such as the investigation and prosecution of non-drug crimes, crime prevention strategies, and drug education and treatment. In this article we present a legal and empirical analysis of these laws and their consequences. In so doing, we seek to explain why the drug war continues with such heavy emphasis on law enforcement and incarceration, and show the way to more rational policies.
Link: http://www.fear.org/chicago.html

Articles From the Ludwig Von Mises Institute:

The Eternal Drug War: http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=959
Prohibition Versus Legalization: Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Drug Policy PDF: http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/thornton3.pdf.

Other Articles:
Drug War Death Toll: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drugtoll.html
The Duplicity of the War on Drugs: http://www.lycaeum.org/drugwar/dupe.html

Great work Dio,
Great links and great support.

Scottie,
OK, I see where your coming from.....

I also think that a great example is Amsterdam.
Drug use is looked upon as a childish "fad"
and dismissed by the larger population
as a waste of time.

Education is the key....
The cost for law enforcement and incarceration
is way more costly to the taxpayer
than
counselling and treatment

I like to smoke cannabis, especially while listening to a fine album. That doesn't mean I'm disabled by THC.

...is better with weed.
Music, food, and sex.

So you would support hemp legalization?

-"It's Cocaine and Heroin that are at the heart of the problem.-"
Another reason to disband the CIA.
Read these if you please.
-What is beyond doubt is that CIA was directly responsible for the importation of tons of powdered cocaine into the
U.S. and the protected delivery of that cocaine into the inner cities.-
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/pandora/blacks-targeted.html
http://fornits.com/renegade/peaars.cgi?keywords=CIA+COCAINE
From the days of the Vietnam War the CIA has been at the forefront of heroin trafficking.
When the Reagan administration needed to finance its war against Nicaragua the CIA
applied what it had learned in Vietnam to importing vast quantities of cocaine (sometimes
20 tons at a time) from Latin America, selling it to the Mafia, and using the profits to
finance its "covert activities", activities so contrary to America's professed values that
they must be concealed at all costs from the American people.
http://www.serendipity.li/cia.html
While the U.S. federal government has been waging a phony and hypocritical "war on drugs" as an
easy way to increase repression in inner cities and confiscate millions of dollars in private assets
through unconstitutional forfeiture laws in order to fund its burgeoning police state, it has also been
an active participant in the illegal drug trade, using public resources to bring heroin and cocaine into
American inner cities at least since the 1960's
http://www.csun.edu/~hfspc002/news/cia.drug.html
***
This and MUCH more, do a Google search; [CIA Cocaine Heroin]

I think they all need a proper cost benifit analysis by a reasonably impartial source. (he says as if that is possible).

Drug laws and other laws tend to get formed in a rather haphazard way so some review would be reasonable (although it would probably be impossible to push it through government so your probably screwed anyway).. I doubt that the review would end in a positive review of LSD for example though.

I started looking for an article about Gustavo de Greiff, former Colombia's prosecutor general. I remembered him as a brave and important fighter against corruption and drug dealers, that suddenly, disappeared from the Colombian political map.

The argument in this article is that he was a celebrity in the US, invited by important politicians. Until he made a mistake: in a conference in Baltimore on drug policy, he explained facts to support the legalization. As he explaines, the day after, the americans were angry. The US started a campaign to destroy his career. From hero to villain. He received from the Colombian goverment a face-saving exit.

Today, Gustavo de Greiff researches and writes on drug policy and law at the Colegio de Mexico.

Full article: Americans blacklisted

I took a look to some of the links posted by Diogenes. I want to read all of them in detail, to form an opinion.

Sadly, all of them talk mainly about the impact, the deaths, the loss for the US, for american people. Of course, those are american researchers.

On the other side, you have a complete country devastated, in which the 'War on Drugs' only fuels a every day worse scenario.

Some facts:

- Unemployment is hovering around 20 per cent.
- More than 60 per cent of the entire population of the country live in poverty.
- Around 6 million of Colombia’s 16 million children live in “absolute” poverty according to UNICEF
- More than 128,000 acres of coca were fumigated in Colombia in 2000, but the net area under cultivation increased.
- More than 40,000 Colombian’s have been killed in the last decade
- In Valle de Aburrá, there are an average of 50 violent deaths every weekend.
- Since the United States version of Plan Colombia was implemented, paramilitary killings and massacres have skyrocketed. The Plan does not support the Peace Process.
- More than 2 million people have fled Colombia since 1995 (I'm one of them :) but just working, 3 years, so I have to go back soon...)

Source

Colombia’s Tragic Statistics

On the good side, we enjoy the life.

A joke often told by Colombians says God placed jungles, soaring mountains, beaches, natural resources and varied wildlife on this land, but then compensated by populating the country with some of the world's nastiest people -- guerrilla groups, outlawed paramilitary forces and drug smugglers.

It's pretty sad for me writing all the beautiful things that we have. Take a look:
- Colombia covers "only" 0.8% of the world's land surface, yet, with between 45,000 and 51,000 species, it is home to some 15% of the all plant species in the world.
- With1,752 bird species and 583 amphibians, Colombia has a biodiversity of fauna unrivalled by any other country.
- The country has 18 different "ecosystem regions" with 65 different ecosystems

So, as a country I think that we deserve an opportunity. Unfortunately, we depend on US decitions to stop the 'War on drugs'. To switch the strategy, to really allow our country to improve the current conditions, with fair trade, without using agricultural subsidies to threaten our weaken economy.

Full?

I posted the full article but I'm seen half of it...

I see that the notoriously criminal Scientology cult has spammed the docussion with lies. For the truth about Scientology's quack medical frauds sold under the fake frot name "NarCONon," visit the "NarCONON _IS_ Scientology" web site at http://www.crackpots.org/

The frauds claim miracle success rates when in fact they've not only never managed to provide a shred of evidence, they're not licensed by any government agency in the United States to operate; they have had to swindle ad deceive their way through "certification diploma mills" to get worthless certificates to operate sice they can't provide evidence to back up their claims of some how being effective.

Don't fall for Scientology's fraud. Check out the truth for yourself on the Internet.