We need to Legalize all Drugs and Reform our Prison System

OK, now relax stoners.

There is no way the Private Prison Corporations are going to allow their politicians to legalize any chronic or drugs. They need the immigrant and stoner population so they can fill their prisons and get paid big money to house these mostly docile occupants. After all, it is better to be filled with easy to manage prisoners vs taking in the hard core violent criminals that cause a lot of problems for the employees and private prison corporate shareholders.

Also, the medical industry makes a lot of money off their drugs and they do not want copetition. Not to mention treatment for addictions is a thriving enterprise that takes in medical insurance money big time. Also, most of those losers who could not get a real job need to work as social workers and therapist. As they need to make a lot of money off the druggies also.

So you see, the illegal drug in the USA is a good thing for capitalism and corporat monopolies to profit greatly from.

Internationaly, illeagl drugs also help the South American countries. This is how it works:
1) Mexico and Colombia produce the drugs and sell it to Americans.
2) The American money goes to the forien country and some goes back into the American economy via gun and ammo sales.
3) The Mecixan cops bust the drug runners, take their money guns and ammo.
4) that American money then goes into the Mexican economy. Hence their 4% unemployment rate vs the USA 9%.

So you see, Illegal drugs in the USA is a good thing.

 

Here's the thing, though -- illegalization has kept kids from trying drugs -- at least until they reach high school. With dugs illegal, they have to either know a 10 year old with access to pot or be able to go out to where the drugs are (as opposed to raiding the family stash). Alcohol is much more common among younger kids (smoking as well) because all they have to do to get some is get into the cigarette pack or the liquer cabinet. Prior to at least having an older friend with a car, that's how you get those products. The average age of the first smoke is 15.1, interesting considering that children of that age can neither drive nor legally buy the product. (http://www.sharecare.com/question/average-age-people-start-smoking, http://ctprgraphs.cancer.gov/ctprPopup.php?figure=PSI1&series=1&output=JPEG). So an age restriction does NOT prevent kids from getting cigarettes. In england, women as young as 13 have drunk alcohol (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/3441619/Teenage-girls-start-drinking-at-13-new-study-shows.html), despite the legal age being 18 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age). Given all of this, how exactly is doing this same sort of thing supposed to prevent younger kids from starting drugs at younger ages? It doesn't work with the two drugs we have legalized.

Now as to the other part of this -- drugs are certainly more addictive, especially for kids. A child of 12 who starts using drugs is going to have a harder time getting off again. And considering the long term effects of drugs, this probably means a much shorter life, and one in which the addict will at best hold low-wage, low-skill jobs, and at worst have to resort to crime to survive (and get his fix).

All legalization does is make it harder for a parent to keep their kids off drugs. It sends the absolute message that drugs are no big deal, it makes them more common, and much more likely to be either in the child's own home or the home of one of his playmates. This is not a good thing.

 

Which must explain why the US now has the dubious distinction of being #1 in the world when it comes to incarceration of children. I really don't know from where you get this argument. Was drug use a problem among pre-teens prior to prohibition? I can't find any literature that suggests that was the case. Of course, nowadays, young children may not be trying the drugs themselves, but they are being recruited by gangs to sell the stuff on the streets. I bet *that* wasn't an issue prior to prohibition.

Again, on what basis do you make this claim other than pure speculation?

 

Should be an attempt at legalizing marijuana, cocaine and LSD initially. Some drugs appear to be blatantly poisonous and should not be legalized (i.e. PCP). Some drugs are inferred as poisonous (i.e. methamphetamine), however, the information is lacking as to whether the drug is poisonous or the cutting agents are poisonous (i.e. how much rat poison the cheapskate dealer adds to your buy). The experience should also be purchased. In other words, if the high from LSD is 3 hours from x dosage, the seller should provide a safe and pleasant environment for the buyer so that they are not driving or jumping out of windows during that time period.

 

That seems rather excessive. What's the point? It really shouldn't be the government's job to babysit you. I agree with unregulated legalization. I do not agree with proposals that include some absurd degree of pointless government bureaucracy.

Why should the government care if a person is addicted to drugs but can manage themselves and their affairs despite that? Drug rehabilitation ought to be reserved for people who allow an addiction to rule their lives--who pose an obvious social risk. If some successful doctor is popping pills in his off-time, why should anyone give a (*)(*)(*)(*)?

Merely legalizing the drugs would drive the criminals and gangsters out of the market. If the taxes are low, there would be no substantial black market for drugs. It would be like suggesting that we need to license people to drink soda, because otherwise they might go buy it from street dealers--not sensible for a product commonly available.

Legalization seems to reduce drug usage in general. The statistics clearly show a drop in usage when the drugs are legal. None of those regulations are required--simple decriminalization achieves that.

That seems rather silly. Why not just put people away for meaningful amounts of time, then release them and seal the record? If you want to cut back on reoffender rates, just seal the records and let them move on.

In both cases, less intervention is probably best.