My google-fu is weak today, but I read it somewhere the last few days. Anyone know how many people in privatized prisons are drug offenders? I thought I read 50%. I wonder how those guys feel about losing 50% of their labor.

We don't often agree, but.. yeah, what you said. With, obviously, some reasonable limits (age-limits and DUI stuff, similar to alcohol).

Screw D.A.R.E.

I have one fundamental problem with the tone in this thread so far. I believe the war on drugs can be a positive thing. Even if cannabis is a mostly harmless drug, there are many other drugs that are very harmful to the user and cause behavior in the user that is dangerous to those around him/her. Legalizing cannabis with restrictions similar to alcohol seems like the most sensible thing to do to me, but I hardly think that warrants "screwing the war on drugs."

As another note, the judicial and prison systems in the United States need to be reevaluated majorly. Though I agree with keeping most drugs illegal/restricted, I by no means think that a heroine addict and a murderer should be criminalized to the same degree.

I don't care either way. I don't smoke the stuff or have any use for it. I don't have an issue with recreational users, although I have many former friends because they would rather get high than do anything productive whatsoever, just like many of my former friends turned alcoholics.

Everything in moderation. The problem isn't in the legality of weed. It's in the usage levels. When we're so hardcore into using that we'll buy a product that has to be smuggled into our country, coming from groups like the drug czars in Mexico who kill so many innocent people, it's time to start re-evaluating whether it was worth it in the first place.

Edit: I'm not saying everyone who uses is beyond hope. Just saying some can moderate, some can't. But EVERYONE thinks they can even when they can't

My main issue is that Pot isn't exactly dangerous and it costs this country(which is already far in debt) hundreds of millions of dollars a year trying to fight it. It's pointless and a waste, and if you legalize it you can tax it and turn a massive drain in the treasury into a positive. The law as it stands isn't exactly working. I have never smoked in my life, and don't know anyone who deals, but I guarantee you that if I wanted to i could get some in about an hour. To me that means that whatever laws are in place are obviously not being enforced anyway, so why waste money trying?

As for other drugs I'm a little more torn. The circles of people that surround harder drugs seem to have a bad effect on neighborhoods. I'm not sure if it's the drugs influence or the criminal element that surrounds the production and sale of those drugs. Legalization would take away that criminal element but I don't think making it legal to sell heroine and meth to college kids is a great idea either. I don't know.

The imposed criminality of the drugs play a large role in the negative effects their presence has on a neighbourhood. That is not to say that it is the sole factor, or even necessarily the largest factor (because I don't have the studies to back up such a claim), but it is a substantial one.

Harm to the user is a problem that takes care of itself.

Danger to those around them is already a crime. It's not something we need to add further criminal charges onto.

So rather than attempt to prevent harm to others by regulating/banning a substance known to cause volatile and irrational behavior, it's better to just punish the criminal afterwards? Sorry, but I see no reason to agree with that. We can agree to disagree, but I think we need to do something more than let the problem work itself out through "harm to user takes care of its own problem" mentality.

Slippery slope.