So then, as a cop Michale, tell me how prohibition and all the lessons it taught (or failed to teach rather) doesn't apply to Marijuana? I'm excluding the harder drugs, even I admit that's a whole 'nother ball game. (Though you should really watch the Hamsterdam sub plot in season 3 of the wire, very interesting, though very fictional)

Why won't ya'all address that??

Bit of a conflict with what you posted before:

You will never EVER convince me that legalization is the best way to go, no matter how many facts and figures you throw at me..

So, are you open to the possibility that you could be wrong or do you refuse to be convinced regardless of the evidence? Can't have it both ways...

The problem is, if *I* am right, there is no going back. And the consequences will not be pleasant...

Meh, that's what they say about climate change and you seem to refute that. Double standard?

Ya'all simply cannot concede the possibility that ya'all MIGHT be wrong.

And ya'all refuse to comprehend the consequences OF ya'all being wrong..

What if you are wrong?

Why won't ya'all address that??

Michale

Key words there being "NOW LEGAL"...

The discussion is legality..

Beer is legal. Marijuana has, heretofore, been ILLEGAL...

The discussion is legality..

The problem with cop logic is with many things you only see a slice of of the whole.

And your wealth of LEO experience tells you this??

That was sarcasm, in case you missed it.. :D

Michale

One small, but important distinction.

A small little difference that makes ALL the difference in the discussion..

Only if you completely ignore the discussion. The point is alcohol was legal then illegal, now legal. Marijuana was legal once, now illegal but quickly heading toward legal. If you were consistent, then:

You will never EVER convince me that legalization is the best way to go, no matter how many facts and figures you throw at me..

This would apply to alcohol.

The problem with cop logic is with many things you only see a slice of of the whole. With heroin or meth that is probably a pretty wide slice. Marijuana only, a very narrow one comparable to alcohol consumption...

I would say it's because of the entire drug culture and the peer pressure that goes along with it..

And THAT culture will not change simply because the drug is made legal..

And THAT is where the majority of the problems lie..

Michale

Perhaps it is..

But I am just an old fashioned cop at heart. I leave the those who really gives a rats ass about it.

It's illegal and that's that as far as I am concerned..

To put it simpler, if you could get Marijuana at the 7/11 would it still be a gateway drug? Or would it be an ok drug, like that Alcohol we all enjoy.

We're well on our way to finding out, wouldn't you say??

The problem is, if *I* am right, there is no going back. And the consequences will not be pleasant...

That's the problem with many things that the Left (and ya'all) push..

Ya'all simply cannot concede the possibility that ya'all MIGHT be wrong.

And ya'all refuse to comprehend the consequences OF ya'all being wrong..

Michale....

To be more accurate, CAN lead to harder drugs..

Doesn't always, obviously. Our POTUS was a full blown druggie and look how he turned out..

To the empirical chagrin of this country...

Michale

Doubt all you want...

And despite all the Leftist "studies" that say different, marijuana use DOES lead to harder drugs...

Under the same logic, maybe you should not drink that beer?

One small, but important distinction.

Beer is legal...

A small little difference that makes ALL the difference in the discussion..

Michale

Specifically Marijuana alone? I seriously doubt that. Alcohol does just as bad and to more people than even the worst drugs. Similar stuff was said about alcohol in the lead up to prohibition. Alcohol was illegal once.

You will never EVER convince me that legalization is the best way to go, no matter how many facts and figures you throw at me..

Under the same logic, maybe you should not drink that beer?

Because it sets a bad precedence...

As to the rest, you are talking to a cop..

Well, at least a former cop, but there really isn't any such thing as a "former" cop. Just like there really isn't such thing as a "former" Marine. Once a cop/Marine, always a cop/Marine... But I digest..

I have seen first hand the damage and destruction wrought by supposedly "harmless" drugs..

You will never EVER convince me that legalization is the best way to go, no matter how many facts and figures you throw at me..

And if you have walked in my shoes and seen what I have seen, I can guarantee you that you would feel exactly the same way..

Personally, I think the best solution laid out was the one in Stephen Coonts UNDER SEIGE...

But that's just me...

Michale

Michale"

Why shouldn't it be?

I will now make the economic case as to why the war on drugs is too difficult to enforce, is incredibly expensive and produces results counter to its stated goals.

What is the goal of the War on Drugs? The argument begins with harm reduction on a societal and personal level. Drugs, at least according to this argument, are harmful. They cause physiological damage to the human body, encourage behaviors that are harmful to society as a whole, and cause economic damage as people spend their often limited resources on supporting illegal organizations that otherwise could be spent on the legitimate and legal economy. Therefore, drugs must be banned, and both dealers and users prosecuted in order to end the harm that drugs are causing.

Now a great case study for this is.....

Prohibition!

(If you're too lazy to do historical research you could always just the Wire and Boardwalk Empire, both of which deal heavily with Drug related issues)

So the above argument was applied to Alcohol, and it turned into a colossal failure. Is Alcohol harmful? Hell yes! Did banning it solve that problem? No, in fact it made many of the problems worse.

So step by step, lets tackle personal harm. Illegal Alcohol, by it's very nature, was an unregulated product. No consumer protection, no FDA oversight (not sure if the FDA was around at the time, but you get the idea), and no accountability for the persons selling substandard products. This led to all kinds of nonsense, but the basic idea is that making Alcohol illegal increased the level of personal harm in the drug.

Societal Harm, in Prohibition there was in fact a rise in Crime, both violent (think mobsters killing each other and civilians) and non-violent, (smuggling Alcohol). Whereas pre-Prohibition, a violent drunk could and would cause all sorts of headaches for police and society. Those problems are compounded, not diminished, when everyone in the chain leading up to the guy getting drunk have a vested interest in avoiding police actions, or any other collective societal action that attempts to reduce the harm that man could and would cause. Is the owner of a speakeasy going to call the cops to deal with this man in his establishment? Of course not, because then his entire business would be ruined. When you make a Drug illegal, all the societal protections for consumers and sellers disappear. Congratulations, you've created Deadwood! (also an awesome show)

Economic harm, in the pre-prohibition era, Bars and distilleries operated legally. They paid their taxes, were overseen by current forms of consumer protections, and in turn plowed their money back into the local economy as they didn't have to launder their money to buy groceries or what have you. When these operations were made illegal, they stopped paying taxes and their money was removed from the legitimate economy (at least without having to jump through corrupt middlemen and institutions willing to launder money) This situation is definitively worse than what came before.

Now to apply this to the current war on drugs. I don't have to I just did! All of the current arguments apply. Don't want drugs cut with rat poison to kill people? Maybe we should have inspectors. Don't want people and organizations to purse extra-legal methods of dispute resolution? Maybe they should be able to go to the cops, instead of resorting to physical violence. Don't want giant murderous cartels to be making money? Remove their reason for existing, and tax and regulate these giant industries.

The war on drugs has been pursued for pretty much the entirety of the 20th century. It has proven, and I say proven, to be tremendously expensive. It costs tons of money to pay narcotics enforcers, it costs tons of money to house drug convicts. It costs barrels and barrels of money. We didn't "risk" trying and failing. We tried. We failed utterly.

And I haven't even touched on how difficult these laws are to enforce, and how demand for Drugs doesn't really change with their illegality or legality. Drugs are here to stay, they've been around since the dawn of human civilization, and they will be around till we go extinct. All we can do is decide how our society integrates Drugs. I say we go with the method that is cheaper and reduces harm.

What about That 70s Show ?

-David

Just think how much money we could save if we end the costly and ineffective other "wars", too??

I mean, if the goal is to save money and not risk trying and failing, let's end the pursuit of terrorists.. Just THINK how much money we could save!!

Hell, why stop there. Let's just legalize everything and disband all state, local and federal police agencies!!! We would save so much money and eliminate all the ineffective bumbling of cops all over the country.

As much as it pains me to say, there are some good arguments for legalization of marijuana...

But because it's too hard or to expensive to enforce is NOT one of them...

Michale

So, what you are saying if that the majority of Americans want something or don't want something that the Political Partys should get behind it, regardless of the Party agenda...

Is THAT what ya'all are saying?? :D

Michale