Is It Time To Legalize Drugs ?

[Croppled1]

My apologies to the person that already posted the one I had up here . I will put this in its place though it could more likely belong in National News . I suggest going to the source as their is video and it is easier to absorb . From Time.com

 

http://healthland.ti...pic-for-debate/

 

 

 

 

 

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

• It's been 40 years since President Nixon's "War on Drugs." Is it possible that peace talks are now at hand? On Thursday, President Obama said the question of drug legalization and regulation is an "entirely legitimate topic for debate" — the first sitting president to do so since cocaine, heroin and marijuana were made illegal in the U.S.

In a question-and-answer session on YouTube, in which the top 10 questions submitted to the President focused on drug policy, Obama responded thoughtfully to that query from a representative of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group of former law enforcement professionals whose experience on the streets has led them to conclude that drug prohibition actually drives crime and does not solve drug problems.

 

While Obama made clear yesterday that he opposes legalization, his larger response marked a shift from his previous answers to such questions, which have been dismissive and patronizing. In 2009, the top questions presented by viewers on YouTube were also about drugs, but at that time, he shrugged off the issue. In response to a question about marijuana legalization, he said simply that it wouldn't be a good way to grow the economy. (More on TIME.com: 7 Tips for California on How to Make Legalization Smart)

 

Yesterday, he discussed more fully his own position about the nation's drug problem — that drugs should be seen as more of a public health issue, and that efforts should be made to reduce waiting times for drug-treatment programs and to help keep nonviolent first offenders out of prison. "On drugs, I think that a lot of times, we have been so focused on arrests, incarceration, interdiction that we don't spend as much time thinking about, How do we shrink demand?" the President said.

 

No other President has ever dared to suggest that a realistic debate on drug policy must include key questions about the effectiveness of absolute prohibition. With former Mexican President Vicente Fox calling for drug legalization — and given that Prop 19, California's marijuana legalization measure, garnered 46.5% of the vote — it may be time to have a calm, adult conversation about what the evidence really shows about current drug policy, and what the best ways to reduce drug-related harm may be

 

 

 

Read more: http://healthland.ti.../#ixzz1CZsaVfTi

 

In comments at Time.com

 

 

Malcolm Kyle

“The terms Legalization and Prohibition are sometimes used as ways to create 'straw men' arguments, by essentially claiming that your opponents are for something else entirely." -- Pete Guither of the DrugWarRant http://www.drugwarrant.com/

 

 

Here are the definitions :

http://www.drugwarra...nd-prohibition/

 

1) Legalization: A status where responsible adults may legally acquire, possess, and use a particular drug, although there may be restrictions on time, place and manner. Legal does not mean unregulated. In fact, when it comes to drugs, most supporters of legalization call for some regulation and control.

 

Consider gasoline. It is an extremely dangerous substance — it can cause severe health problems or death if inhaled, can be fashioned into an explosive and can cause damaging fires. It is a legal substance (responsible adults may acquire, possess, and use it), but it is subject to control and regulation. It can only be sold by licensed dealers, and there are regulations as to how it may be used, in what kind of containers it may be stored, and so forth.

 

Legalization of drugs is fully compatible with regulatory efforts restricting access to children, forbidding use while driving or while working in safety-sensitive jobs, banning use in certain locations or situations, controlling the means for manufacture and distribution (including taxation and labeling), and creating standards for purity and potency.

 

2) Criminalization: A status where the manufacture, distribution, and/or possession of a particular drug is likely to result in criminal penalties if caught (ie, felony or misdemeanor charges, jail, fines, probation, criminal record), regardless of time, place, or manner.

 

3) Prohibition: Criminalization as public policy.

 

Decriminalization: American Heritage dictionary defines it as "to reduce or abolish criminal penalties for." Theoretically, decriminalization could mean legalization (and is preferred by some drug policy reformers), except for the "reduce" option. Decriminalization is sometimes used to describe contradictory legal situations where marijuana, for example, is legal to possess and use, but not to acquire — this is a partial legalization that leaves intact certain aspects of prohibition’s dangerous side-effects.

 

The default status of any substance is legal.

 

Prohibition is not regulation, not even in the slightest.

 

Who, now, controls the purity? : The cartels and the street punks

Who sets the age limits? : The cartels and the street punks

Who decides the opening hours? : The cartels and the street punks

Who settles the trade disputes? : The cartels and the street punks

And who gets to keep all of the profits? : The cartels ,the street punks , and the legal entities enforcing prohibition ,capturing and caging citizens in addition to over charging rehab centers , with all groups full of corrupt administrators .

 

There’s one fact that’s chiseled in the concrete where some of the victims of this moronathon are hidden. -Prohibition is not regulation; it’s a hideous nightmare.

[Croppled1]

 

Should we legalize drugs to save the hood - Larry Gabriel

 

http://metrotimes.com/columns/crisis-on-the-corner-1.1092036

 

Response by Reader of Metro Times - Allen Erickson

 

 

MORE HARM THAN GOOD

 

Thanks to Metro Times for publishing Larry Gabriel's column, "Crisis on the corner: Should we legalize drugs to save the hood?" ( Jan. 19 ).

 

When we reach the point in public drug policy discussion that we actually put the drug war ( Prohibition II ) under the microscope, its associated harms will be seen to be far more damaging to our social fabric than any amount of drugs -- legal or illegal.

 

Michigan State sociology professor Carl Taylor's moaning does not belie the fact that only because of the drug war do we have police in cities and towns across the U.S. raiding private homes like armed thugs. While they may be armed with weapons and search warrants, their cause is corrupt and a serious threat to liberty's principles. For cases less drastic than what we have happening to us at the hands of our own government in our nation today, our founders felt compelled to boot out the British.

 

No longer can we be called the "Land of the Free" when we have become the "Land of the Most Incarcerated."

 

Portugal has decriminalized all drugs and is seeing successes in both health and law enforcement issues. Switzerland has had the HAT program ( Heroin Assisted Treatment ) for more than a decade, and their drug crimes have seen phenomenal decreases, and needle-borne infections have plummeted -- a success all around.

 

Yet here we are, knee-deep in debt, and we continue to arrest hundreds of thousands of people a year for cannabis possession. Being broke is fixable. Being broke and stupid is usually disastrous, if not completely fatal.

 

Allan Erickson, Eugene

 

 

 

[+wolfgang]

with all due respect talk is cheap anymore with the politicians imho,to me all that answer was,was a way to side step the number one question on americans minds,not the number two but the number F****** ONE question.

So if it's worthy of a debate or some "serious" consideration blanking do it already.

[AmishRnot4ganja]

with all due respect talk is cheap anymore with the politicians imho,to me all that answer was,was a way to side step the number one question on americans minds,not the number two but the number F****** ONE question.

So if it's worthy of a debate or some "serious" consideration blanking do it already.

 

Agree 110%. They are afraid to debate it because reason is on the side of decriminalization. They want all "discussion" to be restricted to the same old emotional arguments only, where facts can be ignored if they don't jive with how prohibitionists "feel" about it. Fear is the most important tool in their box. If an argument isn't going their way and they can't produce any facts, they haul out "fear" to attack with. This also happens to be the most important tool in the Republican toolbox. It is also currently being used in Egypt and by all Democratic Dictatorships in the world. Pathetic greed.

[+420Atheist]

Agree 110%. They are afraid to debate it because reason is on the side of decriminalization. They want all "discussion" to be restricted to the same old emotional arguments only, where facts can be ignored if they don't jive with how prohibitionists "feel" about it. Fear is the most important tool in their box. If an argument isn't going their way and they can't produce any facts, they haul out "fear" to attack with. This also happens to be the most important tool in the Republican toolbox. It is also currently being used in Egypt and by all Democratic Dictatorships in the world. Pathetic greed.

 

Exactly. Intellectually honest debate is just not something that is done in Washington any more. What I find even more sad is the number of people who are unable to see through this. I guess it is because we just don't teach debate or critical thinking in school any more.