Why Stop At Weed? The Case For Legalizing Cocaine, Heroin an

http://www.policymic.com/articles/78961 ... other-drug


..."But cocaine, heroin and LSD? Surely legalizing these drugs would amount to anarchy, chaos and mass addiction, right?

Well, not exactly. Like nearly all programs, government prohibition — with the supposed goal of reducing the use and access of drugs — has achieved the exact opposite results.

Americans have been forced to cough up at least $2.5 trillion since the drug war began and have incarcerated one in every 100 Americans. Prohibition drives up the price of drugs above market rates, leaving violent cartels as the only suppliers in the same way that alcohol prohibition saw the creation of organized crime.

Despite near-universal criminalization, drug use has skyrocketed. Many current and retired law enforcement officers — who have witnessed the drug war's insanity first-hand — are calling for drug legalization."...

I am pretty sure that the federal government overstepped its rights when it disallowed certain substances nationwide. Can anyone point to the section of the Constitution that grants them that right?

towermonkey wrote: I am pretty sure that the federal government overstepped its rights when it disallowed certain substances nationwide. Can anyone point to the section of the Constitution that grants them that right?

The feds will assume as much power over us as we let them. I believe drug laws are relativly recent. I am not a drug historian but I did read "On The Road" by Jack Kerouac.

Not a drug expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last month and attended close to a 100 Grateful Dead shows in my life. Coke and heroin kill people. LSD makes people into walking vegetables after too many trips IMO.

So does alcohol.

towermonkey wrote: So does alcohol.

Yup, and has killed far more people.

towermonkey wrote: I am pretty sure that the federal government overstepped its rights when it disallowed certain substances nationwide. Can anyone point to the section of the Constitution that grants them that right?

I don't think government, at least our style of it, has "rights" and what the federal government does have is powers, belonging first to the people and then to the States, that it has been delegated the authority to administer.

Those who say the federal government has the ability to ban any substance or any object it wishes will claim that the delegated authority to regulate commerce is what allows such laws to be enacted. Now, to my way of thinking at least, the delegated authority to keep commerce regular, which amounts to the ability to proscribe a uniform set of regulations on commerce in general, doesn't include the ability to decide what commerce will occur or to prohibit commerce from taking place at all. But, then again, I am not a "progressive" who seeks to fundamentally transform a constitutional republic into a social democracy either, so there's that to consider.

And prescription drugs kill more Americans than illegal.

Photo-fish wrote: Not a drug expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last month and attended close to a 100 Grateful Dead shows in my life. Coke and heroin kill people. LSD makes people into walking vegetables after too many trips IMO.

yes, and the people I have heard who are most passionate about keeping drugs illegal generally have tragic friend or family stories to relate.
That needs to be weighed against the overall harm to society.

The other issue is that regardless of how that balances out is what TM asked. Drugs today, 64 oz pops tomorrow?

Photo-fish, like the "not a drug expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express" reference. :rofllol
The big Pharma's make billions to trillions and make heavy political donations.