I'd like to add that if tough-on-drugs policies worked, the quixotic goal of a drug free America would have been reached a long time ago.

And if tolerant drug policies created more drug use, the Netherlands would have much higher drug usage rates than the United States.

They do not.

In fact, the Dutch use marijuana and other recreational drugs at
much lower rates than Americans do. See the web site:
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm.

And if tolerant drug policies caused more overall crime, especially
violent crime, the Dutch would have much higher crime rates than the U. S.

They do not.

The Dutch murder rate is less than one-third the U. S. per capita murder
rate and their rate of incarceration is about one-seventh the U. S.
incarceration rate.

In the Netherlands, marijuana is sold to adults without criminal sanctions in coffee shops.

In the United States, marijuana is sold by criminals who often sell other, much more dangerous drugs, and who often offer free samples of the more dangerous drugs to their marijuana customers--thus the gateway effect.

Legalize, regulate and control the sale of marijuana and we close the gateway.

Let me throw in with you on this. No one seems to realize what an enormous number of Republican voters there are who support drug legalization or at the very least the decriminalization of medical marijuana. We're all over the place and some day the party leadership may catch on - or be forced to catch on when they realize they can't afford a War on Terror and a War on Drugs at the same time.

Dave

Dave Nalle: "No one seems to realize what an enormous number of Republican voters there are who support drug legalization ... We're all over the place ..."

Exactly, Dave. Exactly. I hope the Republican party wakes up to this fact too. If we're a party that's so concerned about defeating failure where it exists, then we should lead the way in ending this pathetic, back-firing failure of a Drug War.

In most ways the War on Drugs is a democrat-inspired program. It's one of those programs that's done for the people whether they actually want it or not. It started with the various drug prohibitions under Johnson. Clinton spent more money on it than any other president, and it's glided on since then.

The problem is that saving people from the 'evil' of drugs always seems to sound good in a campaign speech, even if the reality is wasted money, the ruination of our legal and prison systems and human rights abuses of every kind imaginable.

Dave

Kirk Muse: "Legalize, regulate and control the sale of marijuana and we close the gateway."

I definitely believe in that approach, Kirk, and I'm sure it would work. Thanks for your great, informative reply.

Dave Nalle: "Clinton spent more money on it than any other president, and it's glided on since then."

Well, despite the patronizing preening that we all had to put up with under Barry McCaffrey (Clinton's drug czar), just to be fair to Dems and liberals, it's Nixon, more than anyone, who really set the ball in motion for the out-of-control Drug War that we've got today. In fact, Nixon's own cabinet recommended legalizing marijuana, which he flat out rejected.

But I do agree with everything else you've said, Dave. Thank you, it's good to know that I'm far from the only conservative Republican alive shouting for radical change in our approach to drugs. I especially think what you say with regard to not being able to afford a W.o.T and a W.o.D. concurrently rings true.

Well, I'm a demmie and I not only liked, but respected this post.

I can appreciate what you're saying.


The government makes too much money off Drugs. Their will never be efforts made to legalize pot, and put down bigger restrictions on selling crack to kids.
They'll never wage a war concerning that which can be won. Because it would lose them money.

--damn! I'm tired, please excuse my lil typo monster.

Meant to say also.
The idea of a war on drugs and our government is smoke and mirrors of its own.

I would like to see us spend less time going after marijuana users and more time going after the providers of more dangerous drugs. All we learned from Prohibition was that people still wanted to drink, and that criminalization gave rise to a bigger and more powerful group of criminals. I don't know how much longer it will take for our government to learn this lesson. I mean, most of us who went through high school and college in the 80's were around pot all the time, but 20 years down the road, most are probably not using marijuna because it got in the way of other things they wanted to do, or they use it but only to where it doesn't interfere with the other parts of their life, just like alcohol. to be honest, a lot of people I know stopped smoking or drinking (at least compared to their college days) when they became parents and realized their behavior was not something they wanted to pass on to their kids. In the end, it wasn't a law, or even societal pressure that caused them to change their habits, it was a personal decision.

I would like to see us spend less time going after marijuana users and more time going after the providers of more dangerous drugs.

>>I would like to see us spend less time going after marijuana users and more time going after the providers of more dangerous drugs.<<

I'd like to see them spend no time at all going after drug offenders, free them from jail, and use the money and the jail space to actually put violent criminals in jail and keep them there for a sensible period of time rather than paroling them early because harmless drug offenders have overloaded the prison system.

Dave

I see no reason that we can't do both.
I agree that throwing someone into jail for mandatory minimum drug sentencing instead of using that same cell to keep a violent criminal behind bars is definitley the wrong answer.

I had thought that a Republican conservative was an oxymoron and an anti-drug war Republican conservative a total impossiblity. It is good to see that conservativism sometimes equates with good sense. One possibility is to transfer the weight of American enforcement of desired substances to fast foods and their exportation to the world. Put the DEA dogs on the trail of chain hamburgers from factories and cheap chicken encased in plastic grease and lower the death rate and the epidemic of child obesity. Compare rates of heart attacks and diabetes with the death rate from marijuana. Is there a death rate from marijuana? Maybe 2 people a year.Maybe. Kudos for saying the unsayable in modern America. I am safe in another country but it, too, is catching the anti-drug diversion - rile people up with "DRUGS" and they forget poverty, corruption, loss of constitutional freedoms and other such uninteresting things.

I am all for prosecution of people who are obviously drug-impaired posting here, however.

So you've been reading the recent posts on the Commen Policy?

Dave

'Legalize, regulate and control the sale of marijuana and we close the gateway.'

and 'The problem is that saving people from the 'evil' of drugs always seems to sound good in a campaign speech, even if the reality is wasted money, the ruination of our legal and prison systems and human rights abuses of every kind imaginable.'

Thanks, guys. Great post and thread.

The Reagan quote on the War on Poverty applies to the War on Drugs and all of the other "Wars" of this nature.

"The War on Poverty? Poverty won."

I think that may be the outcome whenever you make war on a concept rather than a specific target.

Dave

I am yet another mostly-conservative Republican-leaning voter who would gladly welcome the national legalization of pot.

(And not because I smoke it; I don't...)

RJ: "And not because I smoke it; I don't..."

No worries, RJ. I believe you. *g*

As for me? I do smoke it whenever I'm in the Netherlands, but otherwise I normally have nothing to do with it.

Heh.

I just purchased a shirt from TARGET that had a South Park character all stoned out... ;-)

We can all agree that the war on drugs is mostly a war on marijuana--if marijuana is legal, the rest of the drugs become acceptable in some cascading fashion the logic goes. What a waste of resources. But even if it weren't a waste of resources, what does the war on pot really do to our collective politic mentality? a plant? Illgal? Because it turns collge kids into blood sucking monsters? Its a joke! Can serious politicians and other "responsible adults" afford to look silly as they continue to reinforce these silly ideas? Because there is no real discussion, a large number of people fear marijuana and will never vite for it. You can't blame the government for maintaining its stance. which brings me to republicans.
How can we move from an entitlement society to a ownership society when so many people act out of ignorance?

i like looking at pics and video on the internet of people smoking pot. does that make me a bad republican?

I think it makes you a very bored Republican.

Dave

To legalize or not? I'm might be one of only a few, maybe not, who actually uses marijuana, but would like to see it remain illegal, at least for the moment. Why? A majority of Americans have a difficult time, at some point, controlling alcohol consumption. Why give them another reason for disaster. Yes, it is unfair to those who use marijuan responsibly, such as myself. I don't drink often. I never understood the point of getting "shit faced", then waking up the next morning feeling like, well, shit. I'm afraid people would take advantage of the situation if marijuana were to become legalized. How many people would get drunk, then stoned. Not a good situation. If you have ever done this you know what I'm talking about.
I think the possibility of jail time should be removed. Maybe a fine of $100-$200 dollars. It would be a civil offense, not a misdaminor. This would be, of course, anything under 2 ounces. This would allow those who use marijuana responsibly to smoke without worry of being prosecuted, but would cause a majority to use marijuana with caution. It's like driving. Most people drive with caution to aviod speeding tickets and various other fines. Unfortunately, Bin Laden has attempted to purchase Cocain from Columbian drug lords in an attempt to contaminate it and sell it in the United States. Fortunately, the drug lords were on our side. So what, I don't do coke. What happens if Bin Laden is able to get his hands on some pot, contaminate it, then sell it in the U.S.! It could have already happened. Maybe it is a viral strand that cannot be detected, or will remain passive until years from now. Do you know where your weed is coming from. If the U.S. were to legalize marijuana, the government would be able to control the substance, therefore ensuring the safety and quality of the product. Is the government truely concerned of our safety? A government's first and utmost priority is to protect it's citizens. Legalization would allocate more funds to the war on terror. Until the quality and production of marijuana can be controlled by our government I would recommend growing, or purchasing from a trust-worthy grower.

Is pot a gate-way drug? Yes and no. It really depends on the person. Do they have any pyscological disorders? Maybe they have an addictive personality.

I was born and raised a Texan. I always will be a Texan at heart. I doubt Bush contemplates this issue often. With issues such as the War on Terrorism, Social Security, Economic Welfare, ect, does he have time to consider the pros and cons of marijuana? Texans for years have known that Bush smoked weed, on a regular basis. He also did coke, in case any were unaware. I still like him. I'm conservative on most issues, but in some form, change is always needed. Our generation can make this change. At the moment, our generation, or well, my generation, I'm 21, does not have a strong voice within our government. But someday, we are going to be those 50 somethings, with suites and ties. Are we willing to stand up then, to make a change? We can eridicate a majority of hate, if we begin with our generation. If we tell others in our generation not to hate. If we tell others of Jesus and His teachings of peace. We must stand up and defend ourselves, but we must do so without a heart filled with hate. We might disagree sometimes, but that's okay, because we will respect each other's opinions, so be it they are reasonable and without ill-intentions. We can make a change. It can begin with us, right here, right now.

I submit that the vast majority of drug users would use only marijuana if it were available at an affordable price. But it is not available
at an affordable price. During the early 1970's marijuana sold for $10 to $20 an ounce. Now it sells for about 300 hundred dollars an
ounce. Today's price of marijuana is the result of the "prohibition tax" which goes to organized criminals--the government gets nothing.

If a beer drinker cannot find his or her favorite brand of beer, they switch to another brand. If they cannot get any beer, they switch to
another type of alcoholic beverage.

If a marijuana user cannot obtain marijuana at an affordable price, many switch to other drugs--like meth. And because marijuana is
illegal, it is sold only by criminals. Criminals who often sell other drugs--like meth. And their marijuana suppliers often give out free
samples of other drugs--like meth.

Thus creating the so-called "gateway effect."

If marijuana were legally available in licensed business establishments like tobacco and alcohol, our meth problem would be a tiny fraction of what it is today.

Of course, many will claim that legalizing, regulating and controlling the sale and production of marijuana will "send the wrong message"
to our children. But what message are we sending to our children by regulating, controlling and taxing the sale and production of tobacco
products?