"Report: 1 in every 100 Americans behind bars"

[thegodfather]

I bet we got more excess cash floating around to spend on drugs in the United States than Europe... same as we got more excess cash floating around to buy big SUV"s etc..

Excess cash? You mean the kind where we borrow about 3 billion dollars a day from China because we have no money here? We are in a defecit, if you consider defecit spending to be excess cash, then..............I guess you could make the stretch to say we have more CREDIT to spend on things like this. As it stands now though, the US has no surplus.

[Pooks]

Excess cash? You mean the kind where we borrow about 3 billion dollars a day from China because we have no money here? We are in a defecit, if you consider defecit spending to be excess cash, then..............I guess you could make the stretch to say we have more CREDIT to spend on things like this. As it stands now though, the US has no surplus.

I still prefer to live in the USA than in Europe,.. even tho Europe has more lax tax laws on investments, basically tax free in a lot of nations there.

I was born in Europe BTW.. so I got some idea, what it is like there.

U're right the deficit needs to be dropped with the elimination of BS spending, and not starting any more wars for a long long time.

[whiteowl]

the republican party used to stand for fiscal conservatism and got me votes for 30+ years....the last six + years it was like sending a bunch of Beverly Hills teenagers to Rodeo drive with their daddy's credit cards....W has yet to veto a single spending bill....excess cash? that would be China's....thanks to the Republicans we do not have any and won't for some time.

[SMCengineer]

For all proponents of the war on drugs, do you believe that it prevents an increase in the number of people addicted to illicit drugs?

All you so called conservatives out there, remember that prohibition is generally a progressive agenda. That should tell you something.

[Act of God]

For all proponents of the war on drugs, do you believe that it prevents an increase in the number of people addicted to illicit drugs?

All you so called conservatives out there, remember that prohibition is generally a progressive agenda. That should tell you something.

I believe basic psychology tenets would suggest that the illegality of the drugs only adds to the allure. It is commonly referred to as the "cookie jar effect".

Making the drugs illegal changes everything. It adds a criminal element to it. It makes them more dangerous (no regulation of substances, or even knowing what you are really getting). It makes more people actually do the drugs.

Unfortunately we allowed our country to be run by self-righteous control freaks who insist that they know what is best for us. Additionally, they are paid off so some drugs are ok while others are bad bad bad...

[SMCengineer]

^^I agree with you, but I'd like to hear some answers from the supporters of the war on drugs like Kfrost and Dangercat.

Here's a debate about the war on drugs with a real conservative:

Part 1: http://youtube.com/watch?v=lNw2r-qmopI
Part 2: http://youtube.com/watch?v=0-4bYI6fwZU&feature=related
Part 3: http://youtube.com/watch?v=32cs6mBA2Fc&feature=related

[spywizard]

"americans".. how do they define americans??

I mean, what about all the illegal aliens here in the usa prison system..

[Dangercat00]

I believe basic psychology tenets would suggest that the illegality of the drugs only adds to the allure. It is commonly referred to as the "cookie jar effect".

Making the drugs illegal changes everything. It adds a criminal element to it. It makes them more dangerous (no regulation of substances, or even knowing what you are really getting). It makes more people actually do the drugs.

Unfortunately we allowed our country to be run by self-righteous control freaks who insist that they know what is best for us. Additionally, they are paid off so some drugs are ok while others are bad bad bad...

I think a lot of the conflict in this entire argument comes from the illegality of green (if I can't post that I'll take it out, but I think it needs to said). I'm not a supporter of that or anything else that barely classifies as an illicit drug. I am, though, in support of the idea that "hard drugs" should be illegal and there shouldn't be any leeway for who get nailed with them. Anyone who knows people who do these drugs knows that it doesn't take long for that person to become completely dependent on being high all the time. Anyone who thinks that legalizing drugs (again, I want to list the ones I'm talking about, but I guess I can't) is looking at the issue in a short-sighted way. "The government is taking away my rights!" doesn't really cut it when the government is preventing the harm to society at large. This is especially compounded since an overwhelming majority of American citizens supports the law concerning hard drugs.

[qualityclrk1]

what its going to take is for the government to try and ban the smoking of cigarettes....it may be years from now but look at how they're taking steps in that direction NOW....the tax on cigarettes has skyrocketed, and now in most areas u can no longer smoke in bars, restaurants, etc......they're trying to make the situation so uncomfortable for smokers that eventually the people will discontinue the use...when the numbers get minute they'll try and ban them all together.....this will in turn start a battle in the legal system, and the law against cigarettes will be deemed unconstitutional.......then this will open the door for other drugs (one for sure- ) to no longer be criminalized on the grounds that cigarettes were denied the illegal status because of the same reasons it () was made illegal in the first place

[qualityclrk1]

I think a lot of the conflict in this entire argument comes from the illegality of green (if I can't post that I'll take it out, but I think it needs to said). I'm not a supporter of that or anything else that barely classifies as an illicit drug. I am, though, in support of the idea that "hard drugs" should be illegal and there shouldn't be any leeway for who get nailed with them. Anyone who knows people who do these drugs knows that it doesn't take long for that person to become completely dependent on being high all the time. Anyone who thinks that legalizing drugs (again, I want to list the ones I'm talking about, but I guess I can't) is looking at the issue in a short-sighted way. "The government is taking away my rights!" doesn't really cut it when the government is preventing the harm to society at large. This is especially compounded since an overwhelming majority of American citizens supports the law concerning hard drugs.

i can understand where your coming from- but i have to agree and disagree with some of your points...i know people who've done the "harder" drugs and never became addicted.....i dont' believe these drugs should be of any use to society....look at it like prostitution......prostitution is illegal most everywhere, and i believe it shuldn't be. if a woman wants to make money by sleeping with men, that is their conscious decision....its their fault that they contracted an STD- they knew the risk involved....people know the risks involved with taking drugs....their fault for using them in the first place- its not the governments job to tell u what u can and cannot do with ur body...in some places prostitution is completely legal.....prostitution is frowned upon in my family- thats just disgusting and we don't feel like we need to sink to that level to have sex and blah blah blah- i could get into a big discussion, but my point is made........those morals have been passed on to myself and to all my siblings....drugs should be handled the same way.....they should be frowned upon and the morals should be set by the individual....drugs that need to be "made" by mixing anhydrous ammonia and other chemicals i believe have no place in society, but making them illegal isn't the way to go- they ****ed up their life and i shouldn't have to pay for you to eat three meals a day, pay for your constant surveillance, ur transportation, medical bills, dental bills, education etc.......i agree you need help, and we could make it cheaper by possibly paying for their rehab (which would be better than prison- it'd be more self-tailored to the person and their individual problems) and we wouldn't need to pay for meals (unless they chose to stay for a couple weeks), but still no need to pay for all the correctional officers and security that becomes involved...court costs etc...don't forget the public defender gets paid by taxes too....(public pretender as i call it) .....if it grows out of the ground, or is already present in the human body- then i say its fair game in moderation or necessity....cigarettes are legal, and i've never chosen to smoke...i know the consequences..

[SMCengineer]

This is especially compounded since an overwhelming majority of American citizens supports the law concerning hard drugs.

Well, in November the majority of Americans will vote Obama into office and further hamper our economy. Does that mean you and I should agree with Obama's policies? The majority of Americans agree with whatever they're told and usually they side with progressive policies because they "sound good."

Anyone who knows people who do these drugs knows that it doesn't take long for that person to become completely dependent on being high all the time.

Your arguement is valid, but the logic is flawed. The illegality of drugs doesn't make it any harder to aquire them, nor does it stop people from using them. Ending the war on drugs would help alleviate this problem. The government, through the "war on drugs," assists the illicit drug trade and helps increase the number of people addicted to them by providing zero competition for drug dealers and huge profit margins. Therefore, dealers have an incentive to introduce more and more people to whatever drug they're selling and hope they aquire an addiction.

If we legalized the "hard drugs" you would essential eliminate the blackmarket for these drugs. The drugs would be readily available albeit with restrictions, which as of today there are no specific restrictions for drug dealers. The price of the drugs would be high enough to deter people, but no too high enough as to give incentive to buy/sell illegally. The dealers that profited from the war on drugs would struggle to make money and most would vanish (most not all). If you need historical proof look at the number of mobs that existed during prohibition and compare that number with the number of mobs in the following years. The decrease in drug dealers would lead to less drug pushing and fishing for new clients, thus less drug experimentation and a decrease in the number of "new" users. Addiction rates would drop dramatically.

Those who are already addicted could be treated (if they wanted to be) with the hundreds of billions the government would save by ending this so called war on drugs. Treatment would literally cost a fraction of what it cost to actually fund the war on drugs. The rest of the money could be used on education, which is key to stopping drug use.

"The government is taking away my rights!" doesn't really cut it when the government is preventing the harm to society at large.

That's a statment generally heard from the left regarding gun restrictions and abortion, but we all know how faulty that logic is. The thought that government knows what's best for you is absolutely egregious. The fact is the government is taking away individual rights with these laws and their is no evidence to suggest that it is actually preventing harm done to society. On the contrary, there is surmounting evidence to suggest that the war on drugs is actually hurting society as a whole. Look at the violence from gangs and drug dealers. Look at the drug dealers trying to get young kids "hooked" at an early age. Look at the robberies that are commited to get money for a fix. Look at the number of overdoses from high potency drugs that aren't regulated. Look at the illegal drug trade and how it affects the economy. Look at who the war drugs typical targets and who it usually incriminates. Helping society? I'm not so sure about that.

[Act of God]

excellent post Blome

[Dangercat00]

Well, in November the majority of Americans will vote Obama into office and further hamper our economy. Does that mean you and I should agree with Obama's policies? The majority of Americans agree with whatever they're told and usually they side with progressive policies because they "sound good."

No, but it does mean that we live in a democracy and usually the will of the majority will reign supreme. Sometimes it is unfortunate that people's interests get overlooked, but thats the price that gets paid for having a functioning democratic republic.

I think its also important to note that although you are probably right about Obama getting voted in, it almost certainly won't be an overwhelming majority. Whereas if you were to issue a survey that asked every American if they think hard drugs should be illegal or not, the percentage that supports having them illegal would be ridiculously higher than those who don't. And again, I'm not talking about all drugs here.

Your arguement is valid, but the logic is flawed. The illegality of drugs doesn't make it any harder to aquire them, nor does it stop people from using them. Ending the war on drugs would help alleviate this problem. The government, through the "war on drugs," assists the illicit drug trade and helps increase the number of people addicted to them by providing zero competition for drug dealers and huge profit margins. Therefore, dealers have an incentive to introduce more and more people to whatever drug they're selling and hope they aquire an addiction.

I would say that the illegality of drugs makes them significantly harder to acquire and it does, to a degree stop people from them getting them. Finding a dealer, meeting him, risking its a cop, risking get robbed, and paying large sums of money for a drug is a lot harder than going to the legal drug store and asking for a gram.

You're right in that dealers have the incentive to introduce as many drugs as they can into society, but it isn't because they government isn't providing enough competition for it. It seems like your logic is sound, but only in economic terms. American government doesn't provide competition by trying to undersell the dealers, it provides legal penalties by trying to stop the dealers in general. Obviously trying to stop major dealers from getting their stuff on the street isn't going to happen ever, but I think it creates an environment that would be much preferable to having every kid in America able to inject H just by walking to Rite-Aid.

If we legalized the "hard drugs" you would essential eliminate the blackmarket for these drugs. The drugs would be readily available albeit with restrictions, which as of today there are no specific restrictions for drug dealers. The price of the drugs would be high enough to deter people, but no too high enough as to give incentive to buy/sell illegally. The dealers that profited from the war on drugs would struggle to make money and most would vanish (most not all). If you need historical proof look at the number of mobs that existed during prohibition and compare that number with the number of mobs in the following years. The decrease in drug dealers would lead to less drug pushing and fishing for new clients, thus less drug experimentation and a decrease in the number of "new" users. Addiction rates would drop dramatically.

I would have to agree that legalizing the drugs would eliminate the black market, but wouldn't eliminate the problem. Just as 15 year old kids can get cigarettes from their older friends, the same 15 year old kids will be able to get drugs from older friends. Also, even though drug dealers wouldn't be pushing their products on new users, now the government would be giving drugs to new users. There wouldn't be the deterrent of possibly fines or jail time. I think that new users would actually increase because it would seem as if hard drugs are approved by the government and OK to try.

Treatment would literally cost a fraction of what it cost to actually fund the war on drugs. The rest of the money could be used on education, which is key to stopping drug use.

The price of treatment wouldn't change from what it is today. The only thing that would change is the amount of money spent on drugs in general. Even that might not be true because the process of legalizing drugs and all the research, development, and lawsuits that will come from it would almost certainly be equal to if not greater than what it is now.

The thought that government knows what's best for you is absolutely egregious. The fact is the government is taking away individual rights with these laws and their is no evidence to suggest that it is actually preventing harm done to society. On the contrary, there is surmounting evidence to suggest that the war on drugs is actually hurting society as a whole. Look at the violence from gangs and drug dealers. Look at the drug dealers trying to get young kids "hooked" at an early age. Look at the robberies that are commited to get money for a fix. Look at the number of overdoses from high potency drugs that aren't regulated. Look at the illegal drug trade and how it affects the economy. Look at who the war drugs typical targets and who it usually incriminates. Helping society? I'm not so sure about that.

No one complains when the government sets up laws against forming monopolies. Why? Because is it, in fact, better for the population as a whole. The government isn't necessarily taking away anyone's rights by making hard drugs illegal. I don't notice anything in our Constitution or Bill of Rights that even suggests anyone in the United States as the right to use or distribute drugs. When it comes down to it, the rights of citizens are dependent on the rules of what country they live in. Just because this is America, it doesn't mean everyone has the right to do whatever they want.

I think the point about the crimes committed for a quick fix should be addressed as well, because it really doesn't make a difference whether or not the drugs are legal. Some drugs, once taken, will warp a persons mind to the point that they will literally do anything to get a fix. So, even if they are made legal, someone who is coming down will rob or kill someone whether they're getting their drugs from a dealer or from the government.

[Act of God]

but I think it creates an environment that would be much preferable to having every kid in America able to inject H just by walking to Rite-Aid.

That wouldn't happen. As it stands now it is easier for a "kid" to get H than if it was legal.

Some drugs, once taken, will warp a persons mind to the point that they will literally do anything to get a fix. So, even if they are made legal, someone who is coming down will rob or kill someone whether they're getting their drugs from a dealer or from the government.

You mean like cigarettes? Good thing they are illeg.....oh wait

There isn't a drug on the planet that makes you instantly addicted. Stop watching afterschool specials. Do you believe in roid rage too?


Here's a good read:

The Re-legalization of Drugs
By Tibor R. Machan and Mark Thornton

Professors Machan and Thornton teach in the Department of Philosophy and the Department of Economics, respectively, at Auburn University.

Americans are growing increasingly skeptical of the government’s claims about winning the war against drugs. Should this war be supported because a smaller percentage of teenagers use Green, or should it be opposed because a larger percentage of teenagers and young adults use C and CRCK? Should people be optimistic when multi-billion dollar shipments of C are confiscated, or pessimistic that seizures continue to increase yet have such little impact on price and consumption? We argue that drug prohibition was doomed to failure and that the best alternative is an immediate return to complete legalization of such drugs.

One of the dearest lessons from history is that suppression of voluntary trade only drives the market underground and adds a criminal element. We claim that the trade and use of drugs should not be prohibited and must be dealt with by means of education, character building, willpower, and social institutions, without benefit of force of arms. Unfortunately this proposition is no longer obvious in our “free” society—perhaps due to the widespread conviction that individual responsibility is merely a relic of ancient philosophy and religion.

The war on drugs received several major increases in funding during the 1980s, and the U.S. military is now heavily involved in drug-law enforcement. Despite these increased resources we are no closer to success with drug prohibition than socialism is at creating a “new economic man.” The fact that a full array of illegal drugs is available for sale throughout the Federal prison system, the Pentagon, and in front of the Drug Enforcement Administration building in Washington, D.C., demonstrates that little has been accomplished.

One lofty goal of drug prohibition was to prevent crime by removing access to mind-altering drugs. The great American tragedy is that prohibition has created a vast new area of criminal activity—crimes such as robbery, burglary, and prostitution committed in order to pay for the high prices of illegal drugs. It is well documented that drug users commit crimes to pay the high prices brought on by prohibition and that wealthy addicts do not.

The rate of crimes with victims increased during the alcohol prohibition of the 1920s only to decline rapidly in 1933, the year Prohibition was repealed. Crime continued to decline until the mid-1960s and has been increasing ever since. The prison population increased by 35 percent between 1984 and 1988. During that period the “criminals on parole” population increased by over 50 percent! More innocent bystanders are being killed, more school systems are infected, and more neighborhoods are destroyed by the growing problems of prohibition.

The 1990 arraignment of Mayor Marion Barry was a spectacular media event, but drug prohibition has been corrupting the political process for a very long time. This corruption is not confined to the United States. A look around the globe shows that countries that produce, process, and sell illegal drugs are also afflicted with corrupt political systems—consider Southeast Asia, Lebanon, Mexico, South America.

The government recently reported with great pride that a smaller percentage of teenagers are regular Green smokers. What was left out of that press release is that consumption of virtually every other type of drug has increased and that the number of reported deaths associated with illegal drug use continues to skyrocket. New types of drugs such as smokable C and synthetic opiates are being introduced onto the streets at an alarming rate. The switch from Green to the more potent and dangerous drugs is directly attributable to the enforcement of drug laws.

Prohibition forces black market suppliers to take precautions against detection. This ever present profit-making incentive takes on several forms such as:

1. Producing only the most potent form of a drug.

2. Switching from low potency drugs, such as green, to high potency drugs, such as C and H.

3. Inventing and producing more potent drugs, such as “designer drugs,” which are synthetic opiates thousands of times more potent than opium.

These results have been labeled accurately in the popular press the “Iron Law of Prohibition.”

The history of drug prohibitions reveals that black markets produce low quality, high potency, and extremely dangerous products. The most powerful weapon of these black marketeers is not the gun, but the ability to stay at least one step ahead of law enforcement.

The population of the United States is growing older and more affluent. Normally these demographic changes would reduce drug use and addiction. Even habitual H users stabilize their habits and mature out of addiction if they survive the war on drugs. However, these beneficial trends have been far outweighed by the increased severity of the effects of prohibition. In fact, we would be surprised if prohibition actually did work. Any law or program that undermines individual responsibility and liberty has little chance of enhancing a democratic and free market society.

Most Americans agree that prohibition is not working—the dispute is over what to do about it. Many argue that we don’t have the right people in charge, but we have been changing the guard (and the law) now for over 150 years. Others argue that we just haven’t done enough, but things have only become worse as we devote more of our resources and surrender our liberties to this cause. The support for prohibition rests on the fact that people cannot contemplate the obvious alternative—legalization.

The Benefits of Legalization

Legalization has many obvious benefits. Lower prices would mean that drug users would no longer have to resort to crime to pay for their habits. With the tremendous profits gone, corruption of public officials would be reduced, and because Americans constitute a bulk of world consumption, political corruption worldwide would be reduced.

Government budgets at the Federal, state, and local levels could be cut as entire programs are dismantled. However, one thing legalization would not do is balance government budgets. There is no way that tax rates on drugs could be raised high enough to offset the more than $300 billion Federal deficit. Furthermore, high tax rates would encourage the black market to continue, people would still commit crimes to pay the high prices, and politicians would still be involved in corruption.

Legalization will create jobs in the private sector. People will be employed making H, C, and green for “recreational” and “legitimate” users. All of these products have legitimate uses and may have as-yet-undiscovered uses. Green(hemp) will be a valuable (and environmentally safe) source of products such as paper, fiber, fuel, budding materials, clothing, animal and bird food, medicine and medicinal preparations, and a protein source for humans. It can be grown in a variety of climates and sod types and grows well without chemical fertilizers or pesticides.

The repeal of drug prohibitions will allow police, courts, and prisons to concentrate on real criminals while at the same time greatly reducing the number of crimes committed to pay for drugs. No longer will judges be forced to open prison doors because of overcrowding. The courts and police will be better able to serve and protect—crime will pay a lot less! Street gangs will deteriorate without their income from illegal drug sales.

The people involved and methods of producing and selling drugs will change dramatically. The current dealers of drugs will not survive in a competitive marketplace. Large companies will produce and distribute these drugs on a national scale. In such an environment the drugs will be less potent and less dangerous. Consumers will be safer and better informed—changes in the product will be consumer-driven. The producers will face many legal constraints such as negligence and product liability laws. The threat of wrongful death suits and class action lawsuits will also constrain their behavior.

It is not surprising that these products were much safer before drug prohibition. The makers of Bayer Aspirin sold H pills that were safe enough to prescribe to babies, and the Coca-Cola company used C in its product. These products were generally non-poisonous, non-toxic, and non-lethal. The three major free market drugs—alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine—are substantially safer today than they were 10 or 30 years ago. The average potency of all three continues to decrease over time.

Constructive debate can overcome political and ideological maneuvering only if people clearly understand the differences between prohibition and legalization. Prohibition is simply a piece of legislation enforced by use of law officers, guns, and prisons. Prohibition is not drug education, drug treatment centers, rehabilitation centers, serf-help programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous, religion, family, friends, doctors, help hot lines, and civic organizations. “Just Say No” does not have to leave because we say goodbye to prohibition.

“Private Prohibitions”

In discussing the problems of drug abuse many people feel that legalization would only reduce the prices of drugs and therefore only increase the amount and severity of drug abuse. People would be smoking green in McDonald’s, the school bus driver would be shooting up H, and airplane pilots would be snorting C before takeoff. This confusion results from a failure to distinguish between prohibition and private contractual regulations.

Restaurants could prevent people from smoking green just as they have the right to prevent people from smoking cigarettes or from entering without shoes. Airlines, railroads, and nuclear power plants have the right and incentive to contract with their workers, for example, not to drink alcohol on the job. These “private prohibitions” are generally aimed at the most significant problems of drug use such as safety. Not only are they specifically targeted, they are better enforced—co-workers, customers, unions, insurance companies, and management also benefit from such restrictions and therefore contribute to enforcement. The use of private restrictions and drug testing will be enhanced after the repeal of prohibition.

While we haven’t examined all aspects of prohibition and legalization, enough of the issues have been discussed to refute many of the myths of legalization and to make the question of quantity consumed a non-issue. Re-legalization is the admission of government’s failure in pursuit of a lofty goal, not a ringing endorsement of drug abuse.

Legalization has been labeled immoral by prohibitionists, but nothing could be further from the truth. Reliance on individual initiative and responsibility is no sin. It is not only the key to success in the battle against drug abuse, it is also a reaffirmation of traditional American values. How can someone make a moral choice when one is in fact forced into a particular course of action? How is the fabric of society strengthened when we rely on guns and prisons to enforce behavior rather than letting behavior be determined by individual responsibility and family upbringing?

The sooner we move toward re-legalization, the sooner we can begin the process of healing the scars of prohibition, solving the problems of drug abuse, and curing this nation’s addiction to drug laws.

(I think I edited out all the banned words, sorry if I missed one)

[thegodfather]

Excellent...

[SMCengineer]

No, but it does mean that we live in a democracy and usually the will of the majority will reign supreme. Sometimes it is unfortunate that people's interests get overlooked, but thats the price that gets paid for having a functioning democratic republic.

I think its also important to note that although you are probably right about Obama getting voted in, it almost certainly won't be an overwhelming majority. Whereas if you were to issue a survey that asked every American if they think hard drugs should be illegal or not, the percentage that supports having them illegal would be ridiculously higher than those who don't. And again, I'm not talking about all drugs here.

My point of the that response was that popular thought doesn't dictate truth. For example, if you were to issue a survey on Global Warming I'm sure an overwhelming amount of people would agree that's it's occurring and that we need to do something about it, yet they don't ever take into account the other side of the arguement or what the affects of doing something will have on the economy.

I would say that the illegality of drugs makes them significantly harder to acquire and it does, to a degree stop people from them getting them. Finding a dealer, meeting him, risking its a cop, risking get robbed, and paying large sums of money for a drug is a lot harder than going to the legal drug store and asking for a gram.

I would agree with you to a certain extent. It's true that there is a risk in finding the drugs, but once a person finds someone who will readily deal to them it's a non-issue and the restraints of liability don't really matter. On the other hand if you were to put that responsibility into the hands of knowledgable pharmists who had to put their license on the line you can bet that they're going to take every precaution against selling to a minor or someone they deemed "unfit." Also, if you've ever gone to a party while you were in college you were probably exposed to some kind of "hard" drug or drug pusher. Acquiring drugs is not like you see in movies where people just ask strangers on the street or a drug dealer comes up to you on the street. Although those situations do occur, it's not common place.

You're right in that dealers have the incentive to introduce as many drugs as they can into society, but it isn't because they government isn't providing enough competition for it. It seems like your logic is sound, but only in economic terms. American government doesn't provide competition by trying to undersell the dealers, it provides legal penalties by trying to stop the dealers in general. Obviously trying to stop major dealers from getting their stuff on the street isn't going to happen ever, but I think it creates an environment that would be much preferable to having every kid in America able to inject H just by walking to Rite-Aid.

Exactly, the government currently provides ineffectual legislation against the use of drugs. Normally, if something doesn't work we fix it, but in this case the government does not want to look soft on drugs when in reality it is being soft on drugs by allowing the market to flourish. The Soviet Union was brought down by economic degradation not by force, why wouldn't the same principals apply here.

Your arguement about having every kid in America able to inject H because it's readily available is erroneous. Your assuming that because they can get they're hands on them they're going to use them, which isn't true. This is where education comes in, not penalties for it's use, which does next to nothing to actually detract a user from using once he has the drug.

I would have to agree that legalizing the drugs would eliminate the black market, but wouldn't eliminate the problem. Just as 15 year old kids can get cigarettes from their older friends, the same 15 year old kids will be able to get drugs from older friends. Also, even though drug dealers wouldn't be pushing their products on new users, now the government would be giving drugs to new users. There wouldn't be the deterrent of possibly fines or jail time. I think that new users would actually increase because it would seem as if hard drugs are approved by the government and OK to try.

That would only be true if it started advertising the drugs that they are selling. Pushing a product is defined by actively trying to get new people hooked. I don't really think that would be the governments aim. I'm quite sure the opposite would be true and the government along with most educators would highly denounce it's use. Again, education is key, not stronger penalties.

The price of treatment wouldn't change from what it is today. The only thing that would change is the amount of money spent on drugs in general. Even that might not be true because the process of legalizing drugs and all the research, development, and lawsuits that will come from it would almost certainly be equal to if not greater than what it is now.

Of course the price of treatment wouldn't change, but the money that is currently used to fight against the actual war no drugs could now be directed towards treating individuals rather than incarcerating them, which is what the original post was about.

As for the research and development aspect, this should all be handled by the private sector not by government so it's a moot point. As for the lawsuits, i'm not very versed with litigation so I don't know how to answer this one, but I would guess that an individual who uses these types of drugs would be required to sign a waiver of some sort.

No one complains when the government sets up laws against forming monopolies. Why? Because is it, in fact, better for the population as a whole.

This is a whole different discussion, but, in general, people (mostly progressives) favor anti-trust laws because they think it protects them from price gouging and corporatism. However, this isn't necessarily true and many times it's the exact opposite. Large corporations, infact, love anti-trust laws because it protects their profits from competitive forces. Effectively, what the government does is prop-up failling businesses that need to exist in order to prevent one business from becoming to powerful. Of course, what that means is higher prices in the respected market and a higher tax burden for all Americans. The point is, although something sounds "right" or feels right doesn't mean it logically makes sense or that it intrinsically is right.