Well I think it's worth trying to go the other route but I don't think it's a slam dunk no brainer. You have to realize that if drugs are made legal the distribution will shift to the corporate sector. That is scary because now you are talking about advertising and chemical enhancements. Just look what they have done with cigarettes and alcohol. At least now there is effectively no marketing for dangerous drugs. I can't imagine what Madison avenue would be able to do if tasked with getting as many people as possible using cocaine.

Drugs are bad. Drug law enforcement is corrupt, wasteful, and targeted at the poor working class. Which one is worse? We really don't know. Maybe the best thing would be keeping manufacturing and distributing illegal but making use and possession legal. That might scale back the drug war a bit while not opening some kind of Pandora's box.

Drugs are sometimes bad and sometimes good. This should be obvious. It is not obvious that they are bad on balance.
I think it is entirely obvious that the enforcement is much much worse.

cherry stand?

I don't think you've really thought this one through. A huge part of the problem with the drug war is the insane crime involved in production and distribution. Get rid of the drug war and a lot of organized crime goes away.

There are plenty of real world examples of this, but I will give two. The obvious one is prohibition in the US. Consumption did NOT decrease and organized crime exploded. A much more unknown one is in this little section of Copenhagen where there has been some autonomy to have their own rules. Weed was legal there for a long time despite not being legal in the rest of Copenhagen. At some point, the Danish government decided this was wrong and banned weed in all places. A bunch of organized crime took over the weed trade, and holy ****, the Danish police and eventually government saw the error in their ways and undid their ban when crime was becoming a huge problem.

It actually is a no brainier on so many levels (even if it isn't knee jerk obvious). Take Portugal. Since decriminalization of ALL drugs, usage is down 50%. So let's get that crap out of the way. That if you legalize things, their use will explode. The simple fact is that is not the case. Is it possible the use of some things will increase? Yes, but it isn't the boogie man people think it is. Drug use has been rampant the last decades. The demand is there regardless of legal status. That demand can be shifted over time, but it won't be the laws doing the shifting. People want to claim that smoking cigs is down in the US from 1960 because of rules about advertising and crap like that. The truth is, so many people didn't know then what they know now and it has become an increasingly unaccepted practice (though FAR from solved).

You then talk about the scary corporate world that will poison people around the globe to make a buck. You do realize the products would be improved if they were legalized, right? There would be open competition to produce the best product. People who use drugs obviously want something that does the trick with as little downside as possible. In the current landscape, the consumer is often stuck with some pretty dark and unknown choices on the black market. Legalized, those same people can actually shop around for the most pure and safest products on the market. The internet would be filled with studied and legit reviews of everything. Consumers would know exactly what they are getting into. I know this all sounds so scary to many at first. Something like heroin is obviously awful and legalizing it sounds like promoting it to so many. The reality, however, is that legalizing all of this kills a lot of organized crime, can protect drug addicts BETTER, and keep non violent addicts from prison. Meanwhile, hundreds of billions of wasted money is saved, lives are saved, individual freedom is respected. It's a slam dunk.

How about some new taboos to replace it?

I nominate throwing innocent people in rape dungeons. That ought be considered inappropriate.

I am only in favor of drug legalization is because I have this paranoid fear that someone will plant drugs on me (as revenge) and get me locked away for a very long time.

I have nothing but contempt for drug users as they are, more often than not, a burden to society.

yeah really, I hate those a-holes that use caffeine and acetaminophen. ****ING JUNKIES **** YOU!

Hahahahahaha. You are so good at making a joke while misconstruing what someone else said.

I'm hoping to get paid for it some day.

Do you have comtempt for all users or just the ones who are burdens to society?

Well naturally I just dislike them all, though I'm not sure if I'm justified in doing so.

My emotional response to drugs is most likely a result of the propaganda and some personal relationships and encounters I have had with drug addicts.

I also despise everything about marijuana culture as it is incredibly juvenile and often pseudo-intellectual (in a bad way).

You're right I haven't thought this through as much as other issues. I have just recently been made aware of how so many other things are connected to the drug war. I haven't read anything in-depth about all this but got a little more into the issue after seeing the documentary called "The House I Live In" made by the same guy who did "Why We Fight". I just don't do drugs. I smoked some weed on a few occasions and, to be honest, I was expecting a lot more considering all these people structuring their lives around it. Perhaps it affects people differentially. Anyway, the drug issue is probably one of the biggest issues that people who don't do drugs don't really think about.

So I'm not going to pretend I know my **** and make up retorts for why what you're saying is wrong, although I think you underestimate the power of advertising's influence on consumption and also the ability of science to make inherently dangerous drugs "safe". I do fear corporations becoming super pushers and, as you may know, they always start with the kids since brand loyalty is all important. But I would be willing to trade that risk for the absurd situation we have now, especially since we presumably would have some strict limitations on advertising.

No worries. Just to make it clear, I also have very little experience with drugs. I have no real interest or desire to find out more than the little I have done. Things that **** with my head just creep me out so I hope it is clear my opinion has nothing to do with my desire to be able to live some kind of drug fantasy out in the open.

Just a side point that is a lot more general. Just like with a lot of foods, some policy issues are just really damn uncomfortable when you first start to take it in. I know there are many foods I absolutely love that took me literally years to really enjoy. I think it can be the same with something like this. When I first started thinking about it I was really uncomfortable with the idea. I don't think there would have been any way to completely force me to go from where I was then to where I am now without significant time going by. At least for me, it did need to melt quite a bit before it became the no-brainer it is to me now on so many levels.

As for your concerns about bad **** happening in a legalized drug environment, it certainly will occur and there will be plenty of cries to stop it because so many people assume government is the proper avenue to dealing with problems of all kinds. The reality, however, is that a ton more bad **** happens in a illegal, black market climate but people still sleep more peacefully when they feel like they are trying to stop things through governmental prohibition. It is not that easy or obvious for people to feel like they are doing 'nothing' while problems occur and when those problems are occurring, it isn't like people are going to see clearly that they are less than prior to ending the prohibition. This is what is so damn cool about what happened in Portugal. The real way a society can trend toward less drug use is through shifting cultures. This can take a lot of time, even a generation or more, but affecting the hearts and minds of people is really the only way to change drug behavior. Obviously plenty of other factors as well but you see where I am going...

Well, whatever you do don't piss off people who have access to drugs.

Ok, I just think it's a little strange to have such strong opinions about drugs while admitting at the same time that you're not even sure why. I also think you need to be clear whether you're talking about drug addicts or all users because there are plenty of people who use drugs occasionally and it never interferes with their job/school/etc.

Even for addicts, a lot of the time there are background issues/mental illness/etc. that drive those problems. Lots of these people would still be "burdens to society", as you so tactfully put it, whether they touched drugs or not. I'm not saying there aren't people who dug their own holes, but it's nowhere close to all of them. And treating them like criminals as a matter of public policy never has and never will fix anything.

I think they should put tax equal to damage done and treatments received (projected treatments). None of this stupid crap like they do with cigarettes where they pay for current old people medical problems with current smoker tax money (no correlation). They should ban advertising for conceivably addictive (including cocacola) and require black and white plain text packaging, with 'help line' phone numbers. It isn't really any more complicated than that, but way too many people are making a buck right now, so the bribes will keep flowing.

If cocacola is conceivably addictive, then so is every type of food and drink. There is someone out there who is addicted to green beans.

I don't think that word means what you think it means. But could be wrong again.

Do people believe the failure of the drug war to stop significant drug usage is a perfect example of how government laws cannot really stop anything that has substantial demand? It doesn't matter if it is drugs, guns, alcohol, gambling, you name it, where there is sufficient demand, there will be a supply.

I won't claim that laws and prohibitions can never lower total supply of the prohibited item or activity, but they certainly don't remove them from society and their subsequent prohibitions actually cause a ton more problems when that demand needs to be met in a black market. Everyone can see how dangerous having drugs on a black market has been. Most people in this forum know all the added risks involved with online gambling prohibitions (live games being vulnerable to theft, shady online sites being the only option etc). Pretty much everyone has seen the hollywood glorified version of the crime from alcohol prohibition. So what makes people think the government can successfully prohibit the ownership of any item or stop any voluntary activity that people engage in?

The law finds it's place in the morality of protecting individual rights. Don't harm another person, don't steal from another person, etc etc. The laws may or may not curb this behavior, but do rightfully punish it. Banning stuff (like drugs, alcohol, or guns) or voluntary activity (such as gambling) is not the role of government because not only will it be unsuccessful, but the combination of the continued 'problems' plus their side effects in a black market are much worse than if voluntary activity and all items were legal.

Where can I find 'the house i live in' online?

Not really. Singapore for example has more or less succeded in its war on drugs. If a nation for some strange reason want to limit soft drugs for its people the country needs:
1. Very hard punishments
2. Massive propaganda
3. Early start
4. Smart and non corrupt politicans

Without 1-4 doing anything is more likely to make it worse than make it better.

http://www.sacu.org/opium.html

Communism may be the only thing to stop opium.

Stop the war on prostitution

ha, that is actually another great example that i somehow managed to forget. look around the western world in countries where it is illegal. some countries don't have a huge problem, others do despite similar laws in both. it is happening regardless of the fact that it is illegal, and in some places, the problem is very bad. the black market for this industry has resulted in an absolutely awful climate for the women involved in this underground business. Often times they basically work as slaves and are traded around as such. It is yet another example of do gooder laws making the problem even worse.

The reason I brought up the fact that some countries are not overridden with prostitution problems while others are despite similar laws is to illustrate how bull**** it is to claim the laws can be credited for places where the criminal activity at issue is rare. Some parts of the US have virtually no gun problems and incredibly low gun violence rates. Other parts of the country have really high rates of these things despite similar laws on the books. It isn't the status of the laws that is the driving force behind the behavior most people reject. It's the demand based on the culture of the local society. These things are not easily changed or solved, but pretending you can simply legislate a problem away is laughable, and generally exacerbates the overall problem.