GOP: Drug Legalization

[daisy]

Ash - why is there first, second, and third degree murder then?That has everything to do with the motivation or mind of the killer. Did you read the other posts?

Uh, in saying that America has a government that doen's try to control what people say and do, are you intimating that other people's countries do? I am obviousle getting sensitive in my old age...


What about debating the leagalization of drugs? There is a serious drug crisis going on in the U.S.and, to a lesser degree, in Canada. I say legalize it all and regulate it - what a moneymaker, no more gangs no more prostitution no more crappy junk that makes people wig out!! No more smuggling !
And don't even try, " But it's drugs and they're bad" because alcohol is pretty destructive when used in excess, and cigarettes are pretty horrific.
So?

[daisy]

Grond,
Matthew Sheppard was killed in Colorado I think.
I just don't see the difference between motive and intent...
motive =hate of certain group - can't this be the same thing?

Also, I think we got side-tracked by the murder thing. In my country, I am not even sure if hate crimes can be attributed to murder chargers - it is usually used in vandalism, assault and mischief stuff.

Anyway, I say this topic is about done. Sorry Dengen, about not pm'ing you, but ash'aman suggested both this one, gun legislation etc. and never seemed to need to get clearance from you!
So, what about drug legalization? Is this an acceptable topic?

[Snaga]

Sorry Asha'man. A case of posting in haste... that was out of order.

However, it is quite frustrating that however many times it explained, it is not not not about the punishment [being] varied depending on the victim, and everything to do with seekingto differentiate punishment by attempting to determine the thoughts and personal motives of the criminal.You get it in one sentence, and seem to lose the plot in the next. If you don't see the difference I really can't help you further; even if I put that much too rudely before.

I think Daisy is probably right, and normally these laws don't seek to cover murder cases so we are being side-tracked. Naturally, if someone gets convicted of murder, they would face a heavy sentence in all but the most unusual cases. Maybe it is more instructive to compare two cases of graffiti where one individual gets caught daubing the name of their favourite football team on a wall, and another gets caught daubing 'Kill the jews' and swastikas etc.

Anyway, I think a new topic may well be in order. If only because I think we may have exhausted the debate about general principles. In reality you would need to look at any given piece of legislation on its merits, in the context of the state/country it was proposed for. Drug legalisation would be good - big in the UK at the moment. Also perhaps climate change/global warming would be one we would have a chance of all being able to participate in.

[Grond]

Okay, let's talk about drug legalization.

[daisy]

This is my last post on the topic of hate crimes ( not that anyone cares) for the solw purpose of saying to you, Grond that definite examples of hate crimes in my city would be:

assault of person from oppressed group covered under hate crime with proof that assault took place due to person being member of oppressed group i.e. gay bashing where large groups of men go to Church Street and find a gay man and beat him to a pulp.

vandalism on mosques, synagogues, churches that use derogatory epithets or symbols i.e.swastika.

cross burning on the lawn of visible minority - hasn't happened in Toronto but has happened in this country.

As I mentioned somewhere, I think we got sidetracked into discussions about murder when in fact it is unclear to me actually whether murder charges or sentences are affected by hate crime legislation.

Marijuana at the midtown druggists? Crack at the corner store? Smack at the supermarket?What about it people?

[daisy]

Hey Gronder, what about your idea of different threads re: topics? Should we start now or keep going in this one?:)

[Grond]

No Daisy. Let's keep it in the Political Guild for now.

[daisy]

So, what is your opinion on drug legalisation people? What about you Grond?

Personally, I think it is a really tough call....
-would more people develop drug addictions?
-would as many people overdose?
-would it decrease gang violence and mafia activity?
-biker gangs obsolete?
-money for government?
-better treatment programs?
-less pressure on a crippled justice system?
-would it become as 'cool' to kids as drinking and smoking cigarettes?
-what about its effects on supplier countries?
-should all drugs be legalised or only certain ones?
-I'd like to hear from people from the Netherlands, specifically Amsterdam...

[Grond]

I can't believe I'm going to say this but.... I think that the only way to curb demand is to educate and control. The only way to do that is through legalization. I am up too late and will post more tomorrow. Goodnight all. :)

[Bill the Pony]

Ok, a reaction from a Dutch person. Wow Daisy, you’re asking a lot of questions, so I’m afraid my answer will be very long. Sorry... First I’ll start with the current legislation in the Netherlands, because there seems to be quite some confusion about it. Then I’ll try to post some answers to Daisy’s questions, as far as I know them. Finally I’ll put my own opinion.

The Dutch government has split drugs up into two groups, based on their health-effects.
a. soft drugs: all cannabis related products (e.g. hash, marihuana). These have relatively small health effects (similar to or smaller than cigarettes), are not physically addictive, although they may be psychologically addictive
b. hard drugs: all other drugs (heroin, cocaine, xtc, whatever). These drugs form a stronger danger to the health of the user, and are physically addictive.
The official law for these two groups is similar (although penalties differ): It’s illegal to produce, transport, buy or sell drugs. Possession of all drugs is punishable as well; however, possession of small quantities of soft drugs for personal use is a summary offence, not an indictable offence. (I’m not sure what these legal terms mean, but in practice if a cop finds you possessing a small amount of soft drugs, they may confiscate it, warn an aid organization, and then let you go.) If you’re caught possessing hard drugs you are likely to end up in jail.
The actual use of drugs is not illegal. Drug addicts are treated as patients rather than criminals, and are offered medical treatment.

The practice for the two groups (hard and soft drugs) is very different. Highest priority is given to detection and prosecution of international hard drugs trafficking. The detection and prosecution of sellers of small quantities of soft drugs is given such a low priority that in practice no action is taken against it, so long as the seller meets a number of criteria (no larger quantities than 5 grams sold at once, no selling of hard drugs, no advertising of drugs, no nuisance for the neighborhood, no selling to minors (<18)).
The result of this ‘I promise I will look the other way if you do as we say’ policy is that the sell of small amounts of cannabis is tolerated. So if you want to buy cannabis in Amsterdam, just follow your nose, and you won't have a problem. If you want to buy hard drugs, you're committing a crime, and you run the risk of ending up in jail.

[Bill the Pony]

Now some answers to Daisy's questions. The numbers I'm using here come from the dutch ministry of health, and were all measured in the nineties.

-would more people develop drug addictions?
The introduction of ‘tolerant’ policy (back in the seventies) did not lead to increase in number of soft drug users. The number of people using soft drugs in NL (=the Netherlands) is similar to other European countries, and follows the same trends. The number of users in the US is considerably higher. One difference is that Dutch people ‘trying them out’ tend to use soft drugs for a longer period of time than people in other countries.
The number of addicts (to hard drugs): NL 0.16%; average in Europe: 0.27%. US considerably higher, but don’t have numbers. Anyone?
Use of heroin by people under 21 has been decreasing. (which indicates that legalizing soft drugs does not lead to more people making the transition to hard drugs.)

-would as many people overdose?
Number of deaths from OD. NL 42 (2.8 ppm); US 5830 (19.1 ppm) (unfortunately too small numbers to be statistically relevant, I think).

-better treatment programs?
One of the advantages of legalizing the use of the drug, is that it becomes easier for the addict to find help (he won't end up in jail, but in a hospital) and it becomes easier for aid organizations to reach the addicts. It is estimated that 75% of all addicts are in regular contact with aid organizations. They are provided a place to stay, medical care, a 'get clean' program, and if that failed clean needles and methadone.

-would it decrease gang violence and mafia activity?
-biker gangs obsolete?
As far as I know, we don't have much gang violence yet. But Amsterdam certainly is not the safest city around. Street crime is a problem (car radio's and bikes are just not safe. Most people take them into their houses, otherwise they'll be stolen). A large part of it is done by addicts. But do I feel safe walking alone at night in the red light district? (where the cannabis is sold) Yes. No problem. Do I feel safe at the Leidse Plein? (where the alcohol is sold) No, not at all. There are lots of knife fights there. For comparison: do I feel safe walking around New York alone at night? No. Do I feel safe in the little town I live in? Yes. I walk home in the middle of the night without a problem.

-would it become as 'cool' to kids as drinking and smoking cigarettes?
This is how I perceived things. You might want to take into account that I'm one of those persons who always do their homework, and I've never been completely drunk in my life...
No, drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes is considered a lot cooler than smoking pot. There is lots of social pressure to drink, but I’ve never felt any pressure to smoke pot, even from people who do smoke themselves. Ironically, I know more people who smoke pot regularly in the US than in the Netherlands, and I did get some pressure over here.


-money for government?
-less pressure on a crippled justice system?
-what about its effects on supplier countries?
I don't know the answer to these questions.

[Asha'man]

First off, what kind of drugs are we mostly talking about here? "Soft" drugs, like pot, or "hard" drugs, like heroin, coke, ecstasy, etc.?

Here's what I think. I think that "soft" drugs, like pot, should be made legal. I don't think that pot poses any more health risks than the currently legal drugs, namely tobacco and alcohol; actually, probably less. Cigarettes cause lung cancer and emphysema, while as far as I know marijuana only (!) causes severe bronchitis. The mind-altering effects are actually less severe than those of alcohol. When's the last time you heard of a stoned guy beating his wife? Or killing people by driving while high? Alcohol causes hundreds, probably thousands, of fatalities each year by drunk driving and other intoxicated activity. I just don't think that pot has these harmful effects because it makes the user more mellow, rather than violent and unstable like alcohol.

Marijuana is a highly addictive substance. So is tobacco. So is alcohol.

Tobacco doesn't impair your mental abilities. Pot does. Alcohol does.

Pot won't kill you. Tobacco will. Alcohol will.

Tobacco doesn't make you violent. Pot usually doesn't. Alcohol often does.

Alcohol doesn't make you stupid. Tobacco doesn't. Pot does. (Have you ever heard a stoner laugh?)

These are just some things that each drug does. And yes, alcohol and tobacco are drugs. I don't see why they're legal and pot isn't, to tell you the truth. They're all addictive, personally harmful to some extent, and have differing effects on other people.

Hard drugs, on the other hand, should continue to be illegal, and if soft drugs are legalized, that will free up resources to be used in interdiction and prevention of hard drugs. There is no good reason for these substances to be legal, nor for anyone to use them.

I don't agree with the whole idea of mind-altering addictive substances at all, and I personally am going to try never to even try them.

Ban alcohol!

Asha'man

[Bill the Pony]

Finally, my own opinion about Daisy's last question
-should all drugs be legalised or only certain ones?
For once I agree quite closely with the Dutch government.
I have no problems with legalizing the use of both hard drugs and soft drugs, since, as I indicated above, it allows contact with the addicts. Gives the opportunity to educate, give medical treatment and try to help addicts get rid of their addiction. (there must be a good english word for that, but I don't know it)
Also, I have no problems legalizing selling soft drugs. It has been shown tat it does not lead to increase in use. There seem to be several advantages. The first is that the markets for soft and hard drugs are separated. It is known that people want to experiment with drugs. If this experimenting can be done in a controlled environment, that has no connections to hard drugs, the chance that people continue to experiment with hard drugs becomes smaller. In this it’s assumed (reasonably I feel) that the reason for switching to hard drugs is social pressure, not because they want a better trip. The second is that education this high-risk group (users of soft-drugs) about hard drugs becomes easier. Finally, soft drugs become cheaper, so users won’t need to steal my car radio to buy their stuff. (although I think that most street crime is committed by hard drug users and not by soft drug users.
Finally, I feel much more iffy about legalizing the selling of hard drugs. There should be clear advantages, just like for soft drugs. I would expect especially street crime and gang-stuff to decrease. But I am afraid that the number of addicts in this case would increase by a lot. This is because of the much stronger addictive properties of hard drugs. If you try cannabis a few times just for fun, not much harm is done. If you do the same thing with heroin, chances are pretty big that you get addicted. I would be interested if anyone knows about a study about this?
What can be done instead then? One thing that is done already is providing methadone (for free) as an alternative to heroin. The theory was that addicts would no longer steal car radios, but instead just get their methadone and go chill in their shelters. (that are also provided in an attempt to prevent addicts hanging around in the streets and bothering people). Unfortunately, the results in terms of street crime were disappointing. A study showed that as many as 50% of the addicts were already committing crimes before they got addicted. For them stealing and using is a lifestyle, and free methadone is not going to change that. My guess is that for those people legalizing heroin would not help either.
However, an experiment was done recently to provide heroin in addition to methadone to people who 'were beyond help' and would probably be addicted the rest of their lives. The results were that those people who got both heroin and methadone, were much healthier and much better able to function in society. (I guess that means they did not bother people in the streets). In terms of crime: a person receiving only methadone, committed on average 12 crimes per month, a person receiving heroin and methadone committed 3 crimes per month. I guess that can be called improvement. So instead of legalizing heroin completely, a first step could be to legalize it as a medicine, so that it can be prescribed by a doctor specifically to these 'hopeless' cases.
To me this compromise seems worthwhile. It may take away a lot of the street crime, without running the risk of getting lots of 'casual' users addicted.


Ouch my fingers hurt. Sorry for the long post guys, just happen to be interested in the subject.

[Snaga]

Grond my comment was directed against the death penalty and... the death penalty. The US is by no means the only country in the world to use it.

[Snaga]

I too am generally pro the legalisation of cannabis. In the UK the social use of it now is quite widespread, and as with alcohol if used in moderation it does not lead to the sorts of problems associated with say heroin. It has recently been reclassified from a Class B to a Class C drug. This in practice means that the police turn a blind eye to personal use. Senior police officers were actually very influential in suggesting this move I believe, because it frees them up to tackle hard drugs. I don't think we will get to the cafe culture in Amsterdam very soon, but we are moving in this direction. For many years in Coventry some people have smoked it fairly openly in public (e.g. on buses). Actually that's a bit of a PITA, IMO.

As with all drugs it can be habit-forming psychologically, but is not physically addictive (i.e. you don't get ill from withdrawal).

Because cannabis is illegal, the dealer that can sell you cannabis will also sell you other more harmful drugs. If it was legal, they'd probably also sell you a newspaper. The linkage between organised crime and cannabis is large. A parallel can be made with alcohol prohibition in the US in the 30s - the greatest boost ever given to the mafia. Having said that, you have to ask the question, that if BAT took over selling cannabis (and you can bet the beleaguered tobacco companies would love to diversify!), what would organised crime do? Would they go out of business? Maybe, or perhaps intensify activities in other areas? Dunno.

I also believe as a principle it is right to look at drug problems as first and foremost a health issue, rather than a law-and-order issue. However I am cautious in how that principle should be applied. There are secondary problems associated with people trying to fund their habit - robbery etc. One argument I've heard is that the cost-to-market of drugs is massively inflated by its illegal status, and it would be more easy to legally fund a drug habit if it was legal! I'm not sold on that concept though because it seems strange to try to cut the cost of something you wish to discourage.

Anyway that's a few rambling thoughts (no not rambling for that reason!). Are we really all going to agree on this?:)

[Grond]

Here's a first. I agree with all of you that say "soft" drugs should be legalized and "hard" drugs should remain legal. I am also of the opinion that drug addiction is an illness and should be treated as such. To deal with all the problems associated with rampant drug use (organized crime, socio-economic issues, health issues to name a few) a much more comprehensive strategy is required and my country's (USA) politicians have never really gotten this. They feel if you cut off the supply, drug abuse will disappear.

They apparently don't realize that drugs are not like other commodities in a capitalistic society. They are much more like cigarettes. Using supply and demand economics, one would think that driving the price up would decrease demand but that doesn't take into account addiction. Cigarette smokers are going to sacrifice something else to be able to afford their nicotine fix. Drug users will sacrifice more or (in the case of an indigent drug addict) steal more to pay the higher price. This creates an even greater law enforcement problem, not are you paying more for interdiction but due to the higher prices you are faced with a higher crime rate on the part of addicts to pay for their habit. It is a never ending cycle of jail and/or treatment which really doesn't address all the underlying causes. We must take a more structured approach in dealing with the issue, unfortunately, the solution is beyond me.

[Dengen-Goroth]

I must say that to keep order let's all move from one topic to the next. Just so as this is not confusing for any who wish to join or who are simply reading. My stance on legalization of Drugs is quite simple. If we legalize this form of substance abuse, then we shall only legalize the suppliers of these drugs. If an individual is addicted to any of the currently restricted stimulants, will written law hinder them from attaining more? Will legalizing it make it less frequent in use? We can not restrict that which numbs our emotions. The need for these comes from the need to "get away" from the world as we see it. A place of many problems, which Alcohol, Drugs, Cigarettes, may numb for some time. It rests in society to provide more productive environment, not in laws, to bring the use of drugs to a minimum, and legalizing it shall not make it in an way less. Yes, it is like alcohol, but just because the two will be legalized does not make it "better". One does not support the other. What occurs in Drug Trafficking is what occurred, in many ways, in the days of the prohibition (obviously there are some differences). Just to legalize it so we do not spend effort on detecting it when it enters, or o decrease the spending needed in keeping the officers who patrol the streets lower is not worth legalizing such a dark trade.

[daisy]

I also, as I may have stated before, agree that marijuana and hashish would serve my town much better as legal substances than as illegel bugaboos but i am still in a quandry about how they would be sold - by a government run thing or privately? In Ontario, the province where I live, hard liquor and beer are only sold at state owned stores - the Liquor Control Board of Ontarion and the Liquor Licensing Board of Ontario - so would we have a Cannibis Control Board? The reason I like this idea is because:

1. control of what chemicals are used in growing it - almost anything can be out in pot or hash - speed, coke, rat poison you name it.

2. revenue - the LCBO makes Ontario 3 billion dollars a year - why shouldn't we cash in? And because it would be legal and could be grown en masse, there would be jobs created , police resources rerouted elsewhere and organised crime knocked on its ass.

Yet I am conflicted about the hard drug thing - I think it being illegal is a dangerous, backfiring, fear fueled mistake - this allows all the bad guys to have the power - our fear of hard drugs makes us victims of pimps, dealers, smugglers, and drug cartels from other countries. What if we:
-decriminalized heroin and cocaine , crack included - the two most addicting drugs and the most widely used hard drugs.
We could:
- manufacture them safely in a lab and control the potency - I lost a high school friend to heroin because it was so pure he overdosed by accident.
-monitor who is using.
-wipe out drug gangs and evil cartel control because it could be made more cheaply by government labs.
-funnel money saved from chasing smugglers around into treatment programs and medical services for addicts who need help.

There would be restrictions, of course.
No minors.
No public use.
No use with children in your custody.
No use while driving.

I just know that the 'war on drugs' is over and we lost. They will never go away and things may get worse as new drugs are created - like ecstasy and mdmf etc.

[Bill the Pony]

It seems almost everybody agrees on legalizing soft drugs. Amazing, how come the Dutch government then always has to defend itself?

Daisy, in terms of legalizing hard drugs. It seems that for all other addictive substances, (cigarettes, alcohol) people have come to the conclusion that legalizing is better. So maybe you're right. I feel that hard drugs are different on three points
1. Hard drugs are more dangerous to health than cigarettes/alcohol. Money saved on chasing criminals would be spent on healthcare of the new addicts.
2. Hard drugs are much more addictive: casual use a few times results in addiction. So even if legalizing soft drugs does not lead to more users (since it's not as addictive) my guess is that the number of hard drug addicts would increase. Do you think a society with a number of hard drug addicts similar to the number of soft drug users right now, would be a nice place?
3. Addicts can not function in society. Cigarette addicts, and all but the worst alcoholics can function normally in society. It seems to me that a drug addict would not be able to hold a job. That means that the government would have to provide for them. Again, money saved on chasing criminals has to be spent on maintaining the new addicts.
Of course the whole argument is based on my belief that the # addicts increases. If not, legalize immediately. If so, it seems you won't gain anything. You will probably decrease crime (Definately street crime, not so sure about organized crime, because they might just go off to a different field, say trading weapons...), and have better control, but at the same time you have created big health and social problems.

Hmm, I expected a much livelier debate. Where are all the opponents of legalizing soft drugs?

[Asha'man]

Here's a thought - what if, going on the same reasoning that keeps pot illegal, we made tobacco and alcohol (tobacco maybe, alcohol definitely) illegal? I bet there would be a big outcry about that. Not that there seem to be anyone here actually opposing the legalization of pot, :), but what if it went the other way?


Asha'man

[daisy]

I think definitely cigarettes should be illegal - more people die from cigarettes than heroin and cocaine combined - it puts a huge pressure on our health system etc. But this will never happen because the tobacco companies are too powerful and too tied to governments through campaign money - tobacco companies are everywhere - art exhibitions, sporting events etc. - although Ontario has nipped that in the bud.
And the government makes a lot of money off of cigarette tax.

Alcohol is a little more complicated - certain types of alcohol , like red wine and certain spirits, may have health benefits in moderation, and alcohol does not destroy the health care system like cigarettes - most people drink in moderation and it is not a major contributing factor to health care problems. There are, of course, health and social considerations with alcohol -drunk driving, violence, scirosis of the liver.... but the amount of events that occur due to alcohol are still not as plentiful as cigarettes, in my opinion - so I guess it has a lot to do with soci-cultural conditioning - smoking is normal, even though it kills people thru second hand smoke - childhood asthma!- but heroin use is gross and creepy... i guess it is because of the behavioural change..but also, how many of you have known any heroin users? They are normally pretty inactive.

[Gloer]

Hey, there is one good effect of nicotin. It seems to help thinking and concentration. This goes also for non-smokers - those who are not addicted and therefore do not feel the need for a smoke.

What about coffein? Coffein is a very common drug that used to be illegal in protestant countries (Sweden-Finland) during the 18th century. There were actually secret coffee houses and special police trying to stop coffee traffic! Alcohol on the other hand was considered heathy. Sounds familiar? Well, the reason for coffee being illegal was not it's effects on the drinkers morals and health but a fiscal one:
Those days the prominant economic theory was merchantelism in which each nation would try to increase it's foreign exchange surplus to maximum to gain wealth. Coffee was an expensive luxory import and it's increasing use was theathening the surplus.
Then came Adam Smith...

[TheJospeh]

Another point is that there are other benefits to smoking--non-smoker here so I'm going on word of mouth. Smoking calms people down, yes? Well the highest killer of men aged 35-55 or something is suicide and stress related causes. So maybe a smoker will die of cancer at age 80 or something but at least he'll get that far! Obviously I'm being facetious but there is a point within my ramblings. Furthermore, since when do we govern the freedoms of people to do what they want as long as it doesn't effect the "rights" of other people or more precisely as long as their actions don't threaten order. Let people smoke and kill themselves! It certainly doesn't increase a person's lifespan when they push a child out of the way of a bus and get hit themselves. It's different you say?! Well there is a word for legislating morality and that word is communism!

Daisy's a communist!!!! Daisy's a communist!!!! Daisy's a communist!!!!

Just kidding, about one-percent of that post was good stuff. I haven't slept in two days damnit!

Semi-Sincerely,
The Joseph

[Bill the Pony]

That's interesting Daisy. So instead of a heroin mafia you would set up a tobacco mafia. Incidentally, the way pot is smoked in Holland is mixed in with tobacco, so your ban on tobacco would also more or less ban soft drugs. Ban cigarettes and soft drugs, legalize hard drugs :confused:
It's true that more people die of tobacco than of hard drugs, but that's because there are more addicts. Anyone know how the ratios deaths/#addicts compare?
The Joseph, smokers do cause harm to others because, as Daisy points out the second hand smoking and the strain they put on the medical system. (Now please don't come up with the terribly rude argument that typically effects of smoking don't show up until the end of a person's productive life, when he only costs money and does not generate it. So people dying of lung cancer after age 65 only saves society money....)
Yet, it seems to me (but I could be wrong), hard drugs addicts need medical care from the moment they get addicted, but smokers only after years and years of addiction. Not sure, but the claim on medical facilities by hard drug addicts would be larger than by smokers?

[Snaga]

Just in the interest of factual accuracy, accepting Joe was being facetious:

- The average lifespan of a smoker is significantly less that 80 (might be nearer 65-70 at a guess, depending on other factors of course)
- Nicotine is a stimulant. Its apparent ability to relax people are due to removal of cravings that addicts have much of the time, and the fact that you are doing something other than whatever was causing you stress beforehand.
- Overall therefore the effect of smoking to 'relieve' stress would be to increase blood pressure and heart rate; therefore its counterproductive. Caffeine is somewhat similar!

Still not a good idea to ban it, for Bill's practical reasons.

Also Bill, it has been said, but I don't know whether its strictly true that a lot of the health problems with hard drugs emanate from all the things that it gets 'cut' with. Dealers routinely add any similar looking white powder so they can increase their margins. Other problems are also 'secondary' in that they are associated with failure of addicts to look after themselves - either because they are too stoned to eat etc., or money runs out, or they pick up disease from dirty needles etc. I suspect that the deterioration purely due to the effect of the drugs may not be as dramatic as all that. Obviously it depends on the drug you're talking about.

[greypilgrim]

The government sinks all this money into "treatment" programs, "prevention" programs, and also into housing "drug offenders". A pathetic garbage-can of ideas.
It's a damm shame that the people of this country don't wake up and realize that this nation is OURS, and it's government as well.
Daisy: I feel the same way as you, the "War on Drugs" has been lost, and it is time to reconsider this nation's stance and it's policies under a microscope. I don't have any answers or solutions handy right now, but one thing I would do is de-criminalize pot.
I mean seriously, marijuana?
Totally harmless to others. And not addicting. Not a "hard" drug, or in my opinion, not even a "light" drug, not a drug at all.
What is the criminal angle to weed? Who benefits by it's being illegal? Who suffers? What would happen if people who owned land in America were free to grow their own "pipe-weed"? Maybe not free to sell it, that may cause problems without licensing and such, but why not allow tax-paying citizens this right?
I see no harm in marijuana. Hard substances like coke and heroin or synthetic drugs are DESINGNED TO ADDICT people, and they do, and scumbags get rich off them, and they NEED to be illegal.

Sorry for the long post. :rolleyes:

[Dengen-Goroth]

But to concede to that failure would be to concede to have all drugs legalized. Frustration we may feel over a potential loss should not affect our policies. I have seen individuals smoke many things, and they all affect them in highly detrimental ways. By legalizing this it would make the use much more widely excepted, we shall hamper society even more. And by doing this we'll help those dug dealers who all of you so vehemently oppose much more then if we continued to keep it illegal. Some would say keeping it banned gives it an edge, and by taking away that edge we would make it less used. N-o. It won't do that. We'll just have a large amount of intoxicated individual prowling the streets in euphoria able to commit any crime they deem proper, and those who murder may say they were under the influence. Legalizing this will not help in any way, and simply because we "lost" does not mean we must retire the cause.

[Snaga]

I'd be interested in what the 'war on drugs' means to people. Its very much a US term, and here in the UK its not widely used, except to refer maybe wrongly to various military(?) actions in latin america esp. Colombia to arrest drug barons, and destroy crops.

Is there more to it?

If there is a realisation that there are too many countries in the world where the margin on cocaine/heroin is better than a legal crop for 'the west' to ever stamp out production, then that's not so bad. I think its unrealistic to try to stamp out production, and it misdirects effort and resources IMO. A thought that occurs is that long term, the best way to stamp out production might be to do more to encourage development in these countries, so its more realistic that people can make a living doing something more legitimate.

[daisy]

I don't think I meant to imply that we should - or could - outlaw smoking cigarettes. I used the leagality of tobacco to point out the hypocrisy of certain gorvernment policies - so cigarettes that give innocent children asthma, people cancer from second hand smoke, and hopeless addicts - of which I was one for fifteen years - the privilidge of killing themselves over time.
Smoking causes a myriad of lifelong health problems. So you don't start getting medical bills when you get cancer - it happens years before that. So how can people justify allowing tobacco to be legal but ooohhhmarijuana is too evil and corrupting. And in case people think i am one of those famous Canadian potheads, I have not touched wacky tobacky for about fifteen years - not my thing.
Dengen, I have to reiterate that it is over - we lost the war and need to find new approaches.
And greypilgrim - what is your problem with viewing drug addicts as people who need help? What should we do with them?
Maybe you don't understand what addiction can do to people - this is not a life choice, okay? Women sell sex on the street for ten dollars to buy crack!!! People steal from their families, their parents, their children etc. etc. This is not a hobby!!! Why do you not seem to have any compassionate awareness of this?

[Bill the Pony]

Daisy, I misunderstood you. I agree with the hypocrisy argument. (although I do still think treating hard drugs addicts is more expensive than smokers)

Dengen, I don't agree with your what-if argumentAnd by doing this we'll help those dug dealers who all of you so vehemently oppose much more then if we continued to keep it illegal. Not if, as Daisy suggests, the government takes care of the distribution. Then those criminals are out of a job. (until they find a new one in a different field)
We'll just have a large amount of intoxicated individual prowling the streets in euphoria able to commit any crime they deem proper, and those who murder may say they were under the influence. Not if all addicts are happily tucked away in their shelters, where they can get the help they want.

VoK
Is there more to it?
War on drugs is an American term that I have not heard in the Netherlands. Typically, we don't use such big words. I've taken it to mean any police action trying to prevent growing, transporting and selling drugs, and replied to such a notion. Is there an extra meaning I'm not aware of?

the best way to stamp out production might be to do more to encourage development in these countries, so its more realistic that people can make a living doing something more legitimate.
I like this idea.

[greypilgrim]

The problem with "treatment" of drug offenders is that it only works when the person WANTS TO CHANGE THEIR LIFE. Forcing treatment on one so addicted is a waste of MY tax dollars. I'd rather have it done like the way they did ol' Alex boy, in A Clockwork Orange. I know that is an exaggeration, but what else is there to do?
IMO, jailing "drug offenders" is only sensible. But also IMO, marijuana is not a drug that should carry any penalty at all, unless driving under the influence of it, or something.
A crack dealer will never quit dealing crack if he is not busted. The money (i have heard) is great, and repeat customers. Same with other drugs like that. But who ever heard of someone robbing or killing someone to get money for weed? Nobody.
If there were a serious effort to eradicate "hard drugs" (cocaine chiefley) from the streets of America, why not bring the fight to those countries (or territories within them) where the drug comes from.
We have all the money in the world to pay off governments where the coke is produced, so that we could "go in there" and take down the major suppliers of it. Use our muscle and kill the Snake, not try to dull it's fangs....

[Snaga]

Originally posted by greypilgrim
We have all the money in the world to pay off governments where the coke is produced, so that we could "go in there" and take down the major suppliers of it. Use our muscle and kill the Snake, not try to dull it's fangs....

Grey... I actually thought that you guys had already done plenty of 'going in there' - places like Colombia. Trouble with that is, its not a snake is it? A many headed-hydra is more like it. You can lop off one head, and two more spring up to take its place. The Medellin Cartel was taken out, and what difference did it make? I think this is one problem where US firepower is not the answer. As I said before, there are far too many countries where all the economics tell the peasant farmers to grow drugs, because they can't make a living growing food.

PS there could be a question of the legality of 'going in' if you aren't invited by the government of the country in question.

[Bill the Pony]

Ok, just read the best way to fight hard drugs producers: prosecute them for violating copyright law. This is from today's De Volkskrant (my own feeble translation)

The Rotterdam court sentenced a 40-year old man to 2 years in prison and a 45.000 euro fine for violating the copyright law.
The man delivered pill-pressing machines, and stamps for pressing logos onto the pills to xtc-producers. The stamps contained well-known logos and pictures to make the pills recognizable for users. The pictures used were, among others, from Mitsubishi, Disney, Playboy and Teletubbies. Two years ago the unit synthetic drugs figured: an illegal pill, stamped with a well-known logo without explicit permission of the owner of the logo, is a violation of the copyright law. According to the national xtc-team this is the first time a provider of xtc-production-equipment has been sentenced based on copyright laws.

The Dutch are weird :rolleyes:

[daisy]

Also, attempting to control the drug trade or production in another country smacks of neo-colonialism.
What exactly could you offer these societies that would replace the planting, growing, harvesting, and shipping of drugs? We can't even deliver aid to countries with fewer complications!!

No, the 'war on drugs' 0 I believe this was a Ronal Reagan term in the late eighties - correct me if I'm wrong - must be fought within the borders of the U.S and Canada because as long as there is money to be made, someone somewhere will grown it.

And greypilgrim, just when I think your posts couldn't get creepier, you surprise me - Clockwork Orange therapy? Gee, how nice.

I still say that the picture of crazed homicidal heroind addicts wandering the streets like the undead just doesn't happen. the majority of times addicts get crazy, violent etc. is when they can't score because they can't find a supply or they don't have the money because the hits are expensive - two situations that would be remedied by legalization .

I think this would knock the world, and the drug vultures, on their butts and it may actually work.

[ReadWryt]

I allways find it ammusing when people claim that the "war on drugs" has been lost and want to abolish it never seem to point at the "war on poverty" and make the same claim. With the most favorite failing social programs it's always a case of "...it just needs fixing. Throw more money at it and maybe it will go away...", but a war against something that kills more Americans each year then all the "Hate Crimes", S.U.V. accidents or Global Warming is not worth railing against because that war has been "lost". Perhaps because the War on Poverty was begun by a Liberal Democrat (Johnson) and the War on Drugs was begun by a Conservative Republican (Reagan) there is more sentiment to "fix" Welfare, H.U.D. and other programs designed to assist the impoverished then there is to keep them from being dragged into selling Crack and Heroin to make their money, or to keep those living below the poverty line from having to dodge bullets because rival gangs are fighting over the rights to market their drugs in their neighborhood?

How about we declare ALL of these social etightlment "Wars" lost and stop shoveling good money after bad to fight such failed battles against the supporting of brutal South American drug lords...I mean, really...Drugs are a victimless crime after all. Unless you are the 12 year old kids stomping shin deep in Coca Leaves and Gasoline in some mountain cocaine factory, or the widow of the guy who was talked into swallowing the 20 condoms full of heroin in an attempt to smuggle it into the States but when a few broke open he died.

I suppose though that when you don't have to SEE the casualties of the War it's easy to declare it a failure, so maybe instead of funding a War on Poverty we should actually just ship all the folks living in poverty to Mexico so that we don't have to see them either. Then when we have finally ended the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty and the War on *Insert Altruistic Cause Here* we can all agree that the US is the greatest nation on the planet because we have finally exported all of our greatest problems to all the others...

[Gloer]

ReadWryt has a good point.


Never the less I like to address one thing:

Daisy says that we should quit fighting because the war is lost.
Where is the logic behind that? Qquitting???

Ok. Let's admit that the war against drugs is lost. Should we quit fighting it then?

Nothing has changed, has it? Drugs are bad still, aren't they?

What is the point in fighting against drugs if your fighting spirit lasts only as long as your hope that you get the war over and done with and there is prize in the end.
That hope is illusionary. Do not expect that really to happen. It is fools hope. More important is to learn to go on fighting without this hope.




Hmmm...The above kind of foolhardy stubborn attitude seems to me a bit idealistic, absolutistic and impractical. I am not quite sure it is so. Is it?

[Snaga]

I don't remember anyone saying we should stop trying to tackle the drugs problem. I think there is always room to re-consider strategy and tactics, especially if you don't seem to be winning!

'War on Drugs' is a bit vacuous isn't? How can you declare war on an a collection of inanimate chemical/organic compounds?

I asked 'what is meant by the War on Drugs' because it doesn't really tell you what you are trying to achieve. There is a range of possible objectives, from banging a lot of dealers up, to cutting numbers of addicts, to prevention of deaths etc. All might be laudable, but how you prioritise these will determine how you go about tackling the problem. It seems to me that in many countries, for along time success = criminal prosecutions and seizures of contraband. I'd argue that that is mistaken, and leads to an approach that gives not enough money to the social/rehabilitation side.

[daisy]

I guess I have to clarify ( ho hum...) my position of giving up on the ' war on drugs' - if it was just a matter of going somewhere and rounding people up and sticking them in jail and all the addicts would dry out etc. then I'll drive, but if we keep assuming this is a 'war' then we will continue to lose. I think we need to come up with new solutions to the drug epidemic and this may mean exploring the legalization of drugs and beefing up treatment programs.

I don't even know how you can say that drugs have no victims Readwryt - what was your wording? Victimless crime? I can't even begin to understand how you could believe that. That is not even taking into account the people who are affected by drugs who have no choice - unborn babies addicted to crack or heroin - maybe the women who gave birth to them would have gotten their tubes tied, agreed to abortions, or at least had better medical care if they weren't driven underground by an illegal habit. And a lot of people start their drug habits at a very young age - some people at my high school were into cocaine by 14 and 15 years old - sorry but that is a child in my opinion and a victim as well.

And I think the U.S. already occasionally sticks their homeless and indigent people on buses and sends them out of town - did this not occur in San Francisco and maybe somewhere in Florida?
I don't even know why you are equating social services for people facing poverty with the drug epidemic in North America. They are two different issues, although there is definitely overlap in terms of poverty = more liklihood of being involved in drugs or drug trade.

Really RW, what is the reason for your sarcastic reponse?
Do you think that by legalizing drugs and looking for other alternatives to the drug problem that this isn't just another way to attempt to win this 'war?'

And just in case I am yet again accused of being anti-American, my own province in Canada - Ontario - has got the most abusive policies against the poor in probably the entire country - in fact, this summer, during a heat wave, a woman who was eight months pregnant was confined under house arrest to her sweltering apartment because of welfare fraud - she had collected welfare at the same time as she received a student loan to go to college. She died in her room of heat stroke.
In fact, right now some jerk is runing for the leaderhsip of the ruling party and he has said that he would make homelessness a crime and send people to jail if they were on the streets so I am very aware of my own country's dismal failure with social programs - we have Inuit children way up in Davis Inlet who die from sniffing gasoline in baggies. I think we need to look for different strategies.

[Grond]

I would hope the War on Drugs includes 1)tactical interception of imports, 2) incentives and any assistance requested from drug producing countries' governments, 3) disincentives and tactical interference with government's of drug producing countries who support the trade, 4) education and rehabilitation and a degree of decriminalization to those addicted to drugs, 5) stepped up enforcement to slow and ultimately stop local distribution 6) significant reform of urban culture and society to emphasize education and moral values. We must do something to give teenage pushers a better alternative to making money than selling drugs.

I will also concede that it takes someone with more "savy" than the Grondster to come up with this plan. Someone commented that the drug problem is a hydra. Well, the world needs to come up with a hydra of its own to fight drugs. It must be multi-tasking and multi-national. No single country can win such a war. It is ironic that the situation on the streets of Detroit and other cities in the world aren't that much different than it has been for the drug producing countries. Come up with alternatives to the easy money in the drug trade or it will not only continue as it is, but will grow to levels we haven't imagined.
It isn't easy.

[ReadWryt]

How could L.B.J. declare in his "Great Society" speech a war against an Economic Condition? He declared his "War on Poverty" nearly 40 years ago and it is STILL a problem in the U.S.! I suppose this means that the "War on Poverty" has been lost...

When a War is declared "lost" it means that it has come to an end, and therefor should be abandoned. Carefull which "wars" you claim have been "lost", you may find that the War against AIDS, the War on Illiteracy and the War on Poverty will fall into the same catagory and that they will loose support. One does not state that new strategies should be employed in a War which has been lost...These things are really common sense, and so it would be more accurate to state that the "War on Drugs" is being lost...that we are in the state of loosing it, which would suggest that since the Drug Problem is still ravaging lives it is time to find new ways in which to address it, as with any of the other social "Wars" we have declared and are loosing...

Here in California we have passed local laws that direct more funds slated for incarceration to be used for Rehabilitation in cases involving drug charges against addicts. With the inordinate amount of assets being seized in the Zero Tolerance policy of the Drug War it seems that the Federal Level could more then afford to pay large sums into a similar policy by diverting the monies from the sales of property taken from drug busts into rehabilitating Drug Addicted criminals. This would go a long way towards healing those who's self abuse has created problems in their own lives and the lives of others without leaning more on the law abiding tax payers for the funds to do it.

There is also the problem with our porous borders and the ability for foreign drugs to enter the country. This has, in some respects, been taking care of itself due to the "War on Terrorism"...Here in San Diego we are hearing stories about how suddenly cheap Pot and Cocaine are permiating many aspects of life in Mexico because it cannot get into the U.S..

'War on Drugs' is a bit vacuous isn't? How can you declare war on an a collection of inanimate chemical/organic compounds?

Well it seems to me that, with so many people telling us that Drug Addiction is a Disease, it should become clear that this is not a war against inanimate compounds...unless you wish to call a "war" on an entire culture that feeds this "disease", the misconceptions that fuel the "disease" and the health problems caused by the "disease" vacuous...

Daisy,

I'm sorry that the only sarcasm you seemed to gleam from my post did not include my sarcasm about Drug Abuse being Victimless...I presumed foolishly that by following up such a statement with examples of Victims caused by the Drug Trade would make it apparent, but I was apparently wrong.

As for Drugs and Poverty, I think you would find that most of the Street Level drug sales are happening in impoverished areas, in the cities anyways, because of the alure of quick money and because many people seem to fall into the trap of Chemical Escapism to forget their economic condition. Even those who live in these areas NOT doing drugs are effected by the fact that, while their kids walk to and from school they often walk past any number of Crack Houses, are surrounded by the underground drug culture as Dealers approach them...Crimes committed to raise money for the purchase of illicit drugs for addictions touch their lives and violence all too often spreads into their otherwise drug free lives.

It's all very well to fight a "War on Poverty" but if in doing so you are expecting those rising out of the impverished state to have to survive the daily Street Wars that are part of the legacy of failing to address the Drug Problem then you are simply prolonging their suffering in many ways...

[daisy]

Again, I think this is a situation where you and I , Readwryt, are in agreement but haven't quite figured that out yet - at least it took me until your last post to realize it.
you're right about the difference between losing and lost - but what do you think about legalizing drugs and seeing what happens?
Canada has always had a drug trade about as sophisticated as out national animal, the beaver ( can you imagine??? no lion, bear, or bald eagle for us!). We have pockets within our big cities that our riddled with drugs. In fact, in Eat Navcouver, there is a neighborhood that was recently ranked the poorest in North America, edging out anything Detroit or New York has to offer. The streets are just one long line-up of prostitutes, dealers, drug addicts and pimps. I am more focused on putting ******* out of business than anything else. Maybe that is naive of me, but it is a reaction to the little criminals who come into my highschool every day and sell drugs to the kids there. Grrrrr.:mad:

[ReadWryt]

Well I am of the feeling that the legalization of many drugs would cause more problems then it would solve. The number of infractions for driving under the influence alone would be daunting, and the manner in which so many lives slide down the slippery slope when addiction takes over would cause familial, occupational and legal problems beyond reckoning. In the case of Marajuana, I've always questioned it's status as a Schedule 1 narcotic according to U.S. Federal Law, outside of the fact that it was made such in retrobution for Tim Leary having successfully challenged the constitutionality of the Marajuana Stamp Act in the Supreme Court and thus struck down the Federal Law that made the sales of Marajuana illegal. Nixon was well known to be quite vindictive, and I could see him telling the Justice Department to lump Pot into the same catagory as Heroin and Cocaine.

Personally, I would rather see room made in our jails for Murderers, Rapists, Thieves and Felonious Reprobates then some guy who got busted for more then an ounce of Pot in his possession, but the harder drugs like Heroin, Cocaine, Methamphetamenes, L.S.D. and the likes are so astoundingly damaging to Persons and Society in general that I cannot see justification for the legalization of these substances.

Marajuana would, infact, not be legalized but "Decriminalized" as Alchohol was after the repeal of Prohibition. In otherwords a Legalized substance is available to anyone who wishes to purchase it, as with Codiene up there in Canada. I believe it's true that even a 12 year old can purchase a bottle of cough medicine that contains Codiene...Marajuana would not be legalized in this sense but instead it's sale would be restricted to those deemed legally old enough, most probably 18 years and older.

Between this and a Federal Sales Tax to get rid of the invasive Income Tax System here in the states would be the two efforts I would devote a great deal of time to if there were only a serious push for them...

The big problem with this though is that, for one thing, our neighbor to the south, Mexico, still has laws against the transportation and trade in Marajuana and I am of the affirmed belief that not enough attention is brought to bear on the amount of crime that North American drug problems create before the drugs ever enter our countries. Huge numbers of lives in foreign lands are affected in horrible adverse ways in the cultivation, processing and transport of illicit chemicals and my fear is that these poor victims of the demand for drugs here would suffer more should the incredible demand for these chemicals increse.

[Gloer]

Originally posted by Grond
...6) significant reform of urban culture and society to emphasize education and moral values. We must do something to give teenage pushers a better alternative to making money than selling drugs.
...

Grond, you call for moral values for the teenaged...

How about giving them a better alternative activity altogether than making money.

Don't you think there is something wrong in your values if you think a teenager should make money at all?

[Snaga]

Huge numbers of lives in foreign lands are affected in horrible adverse ways in the cultivation, processing and transport of illicit chemicals and my fear is that these poor victims of the demand for drugs here would suffer more should the incredible demand for these chemicals increse.

Their lives may be affected adversely by producing narcotics, but they still do it. Why? Because they can make money that way. In a wealthy developed country, you may have a hope of making money in other legitimate ways. This means the drugs trade has no moral defense. But if you are a peasent growing coffee in south america and the bottom falls out of world market for coffee, the moral choice may look somewhat different: grow cocaine, or see your family starve.

That's not a defense for growing the stuff. But it does tell you why you can't stop the stuff coming in. The harder you make it to supply the market for drugs in rich countries, the more you force the price up. And the more you force the price up, the more attractive it is to grow it. Vicious circle.

[daisy]

Hey Readwryt - watch out for that Federal sales tax - we have one up here - the GST or Goods and Services tax - and it has been a living hell. Our sales tax is now 15% and it is so weird - some products have both taxes, some, like boxed tea(!) have only provinical sales tax etc. Four times a year people get cheques ranging from 25 dollars to 110 dollars as a GST rebate - mostly for low income people - how stupid this system is! How many millions of dollars go into employing people who send us our rebates!!! ARGHHHH!
Anyway, hope you have better luck in the old U.S than we did with the federal sales tax thing....

[Grond]

Gloer, I guess I wasn't clear. What you are saying is exactly what I meant. We must drive home morality issues so that they understand that education is much more important to them in the long run that a career selling drugs. When a 13 year old can make $200 - $500 a day selling crack, he doesn't understand that. Those are values that must be defined and instilled in the home. One parent families who struggle to pay rent and put food on the table have little time to take care of these issues. Until and unless we (society as a whole) are able to address these things, drug abuse, drug addiction, drug sales and kids going to jail will be a way of life.

[Ciryaher]

On the subject of cigarettes...has anybody else seen how expensive a box of those nicotine patches are? The last time I checked, they were about $60 a box. That seems a little ridiculous considering you are trying to get people to STOP smoking. Shouldn't the states that won tobacco settlements using this money to make the patches/gum cheaper or free altogether?

[greypilgrim]

Cigarettes are evil.

[daisy]

Yeah but Cir, you are assuming that government is against cigarettes - lots of money in taxes and in tobacco company contributions to campaigns....:rolleyes:

[ReadWryt]

On average less then 40% of the Cigarette Law Suit Settlement money awarded to any particular state is actually being used for Tobbacco related expenditures. The whole thing was a huge joke...I'm personally disgusted with the way it is being handled here in California.

As for a Federal Sales Tax, I personally don't care if we ended up with a 15% Federal sales tax. I would be far more willing to give an extra 15% of what I SPEND if I could keep 100% of what I EARN. But all I usually hear is that it's a "Regressive Tax System" because it "punishes" the poor more then the rich. Never mind the glaring fact that the "rich" SPEND more then the "poor" as individuals each year, and that we would finally be taxing every Hooker, Drug Dealer and petty criminal that buys something other then Food.

The problems are that A) In order to keep the bleeding hearts from refering to it as Regressive you have to slap larger percentages of taxation on the people who have the most earnings because of the rediculous notion that "The rich should pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes because they are rich.", which is as random and irresponsable a sentiment to come down the political pike since Black Slaves weren't recognized as people. B) would be that the two largest political lobbies against repeal of the Federal Income Tax are Sears Corporation (H&R Block) and the I.R.S.. These are MASSIVE lobbying groups and very hard to work against!

The last reason is because, as it has been proposed each time, it would wrest a lot of controll over the money from the Federal Government and put it in the hands of the States, most of whom already collect Sales Taxes of their own. The idea would be that when the Federal Government makes it's annual budget they decide how much the Block Grant to each state will be. Everything that the State collects in Federal Sales Tax above and beyond that Block Grant is passed onto the Federal Government, as opposed to the system we have now where the Federal Income Taxes go to D.C., get passed around and eaten up by administration costs, dumped in the General Fund with Social Security and all the other general budget monies THEN part of it comes back to the State at pennies on the dollar, usually nearly 50% of it having been eaten up by the cost of passing the dollar from place to place.

It really makes a lot of sense, presuming that you aren't taking a big chunk of money out of people's pay checks at the front end as well. By taxing Spending instead of Earning you also make it easier for people to save for retirement without having to worry if their investments will have earned them so much that they loose a chunk of it each year in Taxes, which in turn reduces dependency on the Social Security system to augment or even take the place of Retirement Plans people should have made for themselves in the first place, but didn't because they weren't getting to keep enough of their earnings at the front end in the first place.

On the other hand it makes sense to tax the income of Companies because they are not Consumers so much as Producers. Something like this only works on a national scale if it is applied to Personal Income and not a business, so there would still be work for the I.R.S to do in D.C..

[Snaga]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
As for a Federal Sales Tax, I personally don't care if we ended up with a 15% Federal sales tax. I would be far more willing to give an extra 15% of what I SPEND if I could keep 100% of what I EARN. But all I usually hear is that it's a "Regressive Tax System" because it "punishes" the poor more then the rich. Never mind the glaring fact that the "rich" SPEND more then the "poor" as individuals each year, and that we would finally be taxing every Hooker, Drug Dealer and petty criminal that buys something other then Food.

The problems are that A) In order to keep the bleeding hearts from refering to it as Regressive you have to slap larger percentages of taxation on the people who have the most earnings because of the rediculous notion that "The rich should pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes because they are rich.", which is as random and irresponsable a sentiment to come down the political pike since Black Slaves weren't recognized as people. B) would be that the two largest political lobbies against repeal of the Federal Income Tax are Sears Corporation (H&R Block) and the I.R.S.. These are MASSIVE lobbying groups and very hard to work against!

In Britain we now have the equivalent - Value Added Tax at 17.5%.

The poor spend all their income. The rich spend a comparitively small proportion of their income, whilst the rest is saved. If sensible, they will find tax-efficient savings mechanisms. Therefore the poor pay tax on all their income, and the rich do not. That's why its regressive.

The rich should pay more money in taxes because they can afford it. That's just plain common sense.

[Valar]

Are we still on the topic of legalissing cannibis?
If not forgive me?
I know a lot of teenagers that have or do smoke pot.
I also know some of the reason why they do it is not the high from it being a drug, but the high of knowing its illegal and its a secrest kind of thing.
Marajuana i think should be legalissed, for a start even only in medical use, for some research shows it can help multible sclorosis(sp?). Also the use of it for recreational use has far better effects than alcohol. Alcohol can have hugely damaging affects, just as bad or even worse than Marajuana. Also it makes you violent and aggresive.
Marajuana is normally used to relax, not releive worrys.
And really all these things are down to individials. And how they react to things.
Everything in moderation.