Would drug legalisation help curb Mexican violence?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The current Channel 4 series has highlighted (yet again) the total failure of current anti-drugs policies, and that drug consumption should be treated as a health issue, not a criminal issue.
There are good comparisons with the prohibition era in the US. Alcohol and tobacco are still two of the most damaging drugs known, but making them illegal would only promote crime.
I agree that legalising them should be tried - a number of countries are considering this, and some have introduced measures allowing possession of small amounts.
The Mexican president, though unhappy with the idea, is being forced to reconsider in the light of the recent horrendous drug cartel related killings.

Prohibition causes violent crime, it always has and always will.

Prohibition of Alcohol made the Mafia one of the richest and most powerful criminal organisations in the world.
Prohibition of Cocaine has had a similar affect on the drug gangs of central and southern America.

Legalise, regulate and tax the commodity and you remove the majority of the problems associated with it while generating enough tax to pay for the health and social costs associated with its use.


CIA rendition plane crashes with four tons of cocaine on board
https://boingboing.net/2007/10/09/crashed-drug-plane-o.html

Drugs Equality Alliance:
https://www.drugequality.org

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
https://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

Mexico should follow an example as California and legalize commercial sale of medicinal cannabis. Herb smoke is relaxing and calms nerves. Many pharmaceutical products contain percentages of cannabis.

Toad In The Hole wrote:
What a great idea. Maybe the president would consider legalizing rape, armed robbery & murder too! No wonder Mexico's so backward.


Even by your standards that is a particularly illogical and juvenile response.

New Labour created hundreds of new offences that many people consider to be illogical, unworkable or just plain stupid. If the new government chose to repeal some of these laws would you compare it to the legalisation of rape, murder and armed robbery or would you have the intelligence to realise that sometimes the law creates more problems than it solves and therefore a repeal or re-defining of the law would be of benefit to individuals and also to society ?

Its not a failure of drugs policy!.
Its a failure to stop the Drug lords buying goverment.
Power buys Greed no story there.
If Goverments put as much money into stopping the flow of drugs as they do war. This planet would be clean tomorrow!!.

FACT!

Minimum sentences for possession (double for dealing):
Cannabis, meth etc. 10 years/g
Ecstasy etc. 10 years/tablet
Cocaine, crack, heroin etc. 25 years/g

Rewards for informants, leading to such sentences:
£10 000 cannabis, meth, ecstaay
£25 000 cocaine, crack, heroin

If more money can be made from informing than from dealing, then the trade would collapse!

Until we in the liberal west, and this country in particular have a government with the guts to exterminate the vermin who deal drugs there is no hope, the money will keep rolling back to the drug barons.

And as Mexico has proven, it is the drug barons who control that country and many others just like it.

If the penalty for dealing is death, I wonder how many would take the risk - one thing is for certain though, once dead they will never reoffend!

"6. At 12:15pm on 10 Aug 2010, Ossie wrote:
Its not a failure of drugs policy!.
Its a failure to stop the Drug lords buying goverment.
Power buys Greed no story there.
If Goverments put as much money into stopping the flow of drugs as they do war. This planet would be clean tomorrow!!.

FACT!"


First things first - just because you state something is a fact it does not make it so.
You should read post 3, you may learn something...

The current war in Mexico is a direct result of drugs policy failure. It is because these drugs are illegal that the cartels are able to make such obscene profits from their distribution. This in turn means they have the monetary influence which allows them to corrupt the very institutions set up to fight them. If you legalize drugs then you can minimize the cartels ability to make profit and put them into a much weaker position. It is not a cure all as some would have us believe but it will mean that the state has control of the cartels number one source of income. Which in return will limit the amount of influence these groups are able to wield.

The Mexican government is putting the resources it would use to fight a war against the traffickers, that is why they have deployed the army.

It is simply a sad fact that in this day and age a lot of people allow their world view to be dictated to them by ignorant institutions. This is why so many people have knee jerk reactions to the idea of legalization. Your post is a perfect example of someone who is unable to think for themselves, unable to understand that the way you see the world is only an opinion unless supported by facts. That is REAL scientific facts, not your opinion dressed up as such. Research Portugal to see what effects legalization has had there, then come to your own conclusions...

We need to try something new because the current system of prohibition doesnt work it just makes criminals rich.

Legalise all drugs,and educate people on the real medical dangers of drug abuse. Then its up to them.

Spend the money saved on research into how to stop people becoming dependent.

Allow adults to make informed decisions themselves.

Legalisation of drugs is an admission of defeat in the war against criminals but it is worse than that it condemns to death so many of our children and those yet unborn for a long time ahead. It means that we are accepting for the foreseeable future a drug addicted underclass in our society whose children will carry the mark of drug addicted parents and who will in turn become dependent on society. Legalisation of drugs is the acceptance of lower standards of morality generally, it would be the loss of yet another indicator of what marks out a civilised society as being superior to that of our cave men forebears. To concede in the matter of drugs would give a message to the criminals of the world that law and order can be defeated and that they are free to take over.

It would be like like conceding to a man named Hitler that to take over Austria, Czechoslovakia,the Rhinelands and Poland is something that we can live with quite happily - we all know the consqences.

If it will halt the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. I'm all for it. Why not give it a try everything else has failed.

All drug dealers should be executed.

Cannabis ruins lives.

@ Cydevil

You forgot to mention a couple;

Alcohol/Tobacco - 25 years for posession/£25,000 reward for informants.

After all, why leave out two of the most dangerous drugs available ?

That the government legislations on "drugs". Are but a means, for perpetration of the income they provide on both sides of the law.

Obviously, without governance of some sort around the issues; there would be a poor outcome. So, I lack the confidence that this can be achieved?

When one looks at the whole "war on drugs" time. All I can see is that, the profit from these illegal substances will not be easily given up. The law enforcement agencies will lose jobs, as would the judicial system.

While on the whole it seems easy to say "legalize drugs". The threat that the statement provides to those who profit from their illegality is immense. Those who would find ways to continue with the status quo.

Yes, of course he's right.

Fact: people take drugs, and people will always take drugs.

So, given that, do you want the distribution network to be in the hands of violent criminal gangs, or licensed operators who work to enforceable quality standards and pay their taxes?

It's a no brainer, really. The only reason why drugs aren't already legal is because most politicians have no brains.

11. At 1:10pm on 10 Aug 2010, SimpleOldSailor wrote:

I am not sure how the legalization of drugs would be the same as appeasing Hitler, perhaps you can explain that one in more detail?

It is nothing to do with a lowering of standards, it is simply the most logical course of action when confronted with the facts. Prohibition doesn’t work - now this is a fact. There are lots of historical examples but I will use the most common one; the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's. Did it lead to a reduction in the consumption of alcohol? The answer is no, in fact it lead to an increase of consumption as a whole culture sprang up around the distribution of alcohol, I am of course referring to the 'speakeasies'. So it failed in its primary goal spectacularly. But did it at least lead to criminals being punished for the crime? While undoubtedly there were a lot of arrests of bootleggers, the obscene amount of profit to be had meant the instead of weakening criminal groups it made them far, far stronger.

Legalization is the only logical response to the drugs issue. It will not stop all crime as some people think, but it would lead to a massive reduction in drugs related crime and probably lead to a drop in drugs consumption. Don’t believe me? Research Portugal or Holland...

13. At 1:17pm on 10 Aug 2010, potatolord wrote:
All drug dealers should be executed.

Cannabis ruins lives.


So are you going to pop round the local off license and shoot the proprietor? After all, alcohol causes more deaths in this country per year than the number of deaths which have been linked to cannabis this century.

Only when people stop pushing their redundant, illogical morals on society will we ever see a change in the status quo.

Legalize All Drugs other wise criminals will continue to profit by it.

For all those who want to legalize drugs I first recommend to do that first at home. Let your family members do it, especially your children.... at the end it's only their choice, right?

Criminals and criminal government contacts get very rich from whatever they trade in?

To all those idiots and 'fake' bloggers, who want to 'legalise' drugs, whatever THAT means? Are they happy to legalise human trafikking of women and children by the same criminal and diversified drug gangs too?

The image portrayed of drug dealers is a complete media diversion. If you want to destroy a democratic nation - attack it's soft under belly - the young and most vulnerable.

It is the duty of every democratic government to consider drug gangs and drug culture as a direct attack on democracy and it's people and must fulfill it's obligation by law, or any means to protect their people?

Has already been statistically demonstrated: "war on drugs" actually ***increases*** acreage dedicated to cultivation of drugs.
Legalize drugs: --> put Taliban in Afghanistan out of business
Legalize drugs: --> destroy the cartels and border violence in the US
Legalize drugs: --> undermine drug-related violence in Mexico
Which politicians are financially benefitting from keeping drugs illegal? That is one of the most impt questions. If the politicians have their way, will never be answered.
If this initiative dies in Mexico it will be b/c the drug cartels are running Mexican politics.

We should legalise all drugs. We should build drug cafes in all inner city ghetos. Sell it cheap and this would get rid of the pushers. We can make money on tax and distribution and save fortunes on police/DEA/Coast guard. We have hundreds and thousands of acres of poppy fields in Afghanistan so we should push for more fields, subdue the locals and make a fortune.

If it's legal it's cheap. If it's cheap there's no need to commit crime to afford it. If it's cheap there's no money in dealing it. The pushers end up out of a job, the junkies end up with an unlimited cheap supply, the Afghans end up with a saleable product and an economy. We can reduce the law enforcement and customs costs and by natural selection we reduce housing costs, dole costs etc. It is a fantastic idea.

potatolord wrote:
All drug dealers should be executed.


I'm sure executing the people who work in your local off-licences, tobacconists, supermarkets, restaurants and bars would meet with some resistance from the general population. The country would also suffer greatly if all of Scotland's Whiskey distillers were to be executed considering the amount of money they provide in the form of taxation each year.



Cannabis ruins lives.


So does alcohol, gambling, tobacco, computer games, red meat, banking, cars and other motor vehicles, fashion and an almost infinite list of other things when used in the right circumstances.
When are you going to call for their criminalisation and the execution of those who sell them ?

Cannabis is the safest recreational drug that exists today and the risks posed by alcohol and tobacco to both the individual user and to society as a whole are so much greater than the risk from Cannabis that it is an obscenity that alcohol and tobacco are legally available while Cannabis is a controlled substance.

Cannabis is safer than alcohol and the evidence to support this is now overwhelming;

Cannabis 'safer than alcohol and tobacco'
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/58013.stm

Facts on Cannabis and Alcohol
https://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/

Drugs chief: Alcohol more dangerous than ecstasy, LSD and cannabis
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/health/drugs-chief-alcohol-more-dangerous-than-ecstasy-lsd-and-cannabis-14544981.html

How many people remember the classic 1973 James Bond movie 'live and let die', where the villian Kananga, played by Yaphet Kotto decides to flood the world with free drugs, in order to hook as many people as possible on his narcotics, and to drive his rivals out of business.


Then, when he had enough people addicted to his drugs, and his rivals eliminated, he could the corner the drugs market and sell his drugs for whatever price he wanted.


It is a bit too simplistic to say legalise drugs and the problem will simply go away, what about the extra costs to the police trying to cope with the extra policing burdens being placed upon them, or the massive costs to the public health service dealing with the medical fallout from drug addiction?.

Legalization would not solve the immediate problem. The organizations currently at war with the government would only become more desperate and more violent if their income source were threatened. They would step up other criminal activities, like kidnapping, in attempts to maintain their cash flow. Moreover, a legal Mexican drug industry would be operated by completely different people; these could not transition to legal and peaceful pursuits.

Drugs are a bane on society. Families have been destroyed and the very fabric of society is under threat once drugs are available without control or restriction. Medical drugs under the strict supervision of doctors should be the norm. The pity is that drugs are used to hook innocent people. Drug dealers have absolutely no scruples as they are only interested in the huge profit motive. The whole drug trade becomes even more scary when innocent children get involved.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Would legalizing Fidel/Raul's reign in Cuba help human life conditions on that diabetic isdland?

"21. At 1:52pm on 10 Aug 2010, corum-populo-2010 wrote:
Criminals and criminal government contacts get very rich from whatever they trade in?"

There are those within different government institutions who profit from the status quo, they have a vested interest in drugs being illegal for a variety of reasons but what is your point exactly?

"To all those idiots and 'fake' bloggers, who want to 'legalise' drugs, whatever THAT means? Are they happy to legalise human trafikking of women and children by the same criminal and diversified drug gangs too?"

Ahhh an oldie but a goodie. So if you want drugs to be legalized based on the evidence available it also means you support the modern day slave trade? What are you basing that assumption on? Your own prejudices?

"The image portrayed of drug dealers is a complete media diversion. If you want to destroy a democratic nation - attack it's soft under belly - the young and most vulnerable."

If you believe that drug dealers have a hidden agenda to destroy society then you are already lost. Drug dealers, much like modern corporations have only 1 concern - profit. It is because they pursue this without thought about the wider social implications that we have so many drugs related problems.

"t is the duty of every democratic government to consider drug gangs and drug culture as a direct attack on democracy and it's people and must fulfill it's obligation by law, or any means to protect their people?"

Maybe in Sicily in the mid 90's as the mafia was literally at war with the state, but in the U.K 2010? The drugs gangs here care nothing for democracy, they do not attempt to build up a shadow state as they do in many other countries (apart from perhaps the worst estates here).

'by any other means'? This is a slippery slope. If you suspend the law to deal with a certain issue where does it stop? The rule of law has to apply to all otherwise it is invalid.

You make a confused, illogical attack on those who want to deal with this problem in a rational manner. If you can look past your own emotions and actually research the topic you will possibly find out that this is nothing to do with 'protecting the nation’s moral integrity' and everything to do with one factor - Profit.

Legalising drugs is not going to minimize the problem. Drugs have to to banned. One needs to take a leaf from the Singapore Government's zero tolerance towards drugs. Mexico would be a far better place, certainly a safer one, if drugs were taken out of circulation and drug traffickers given stiffer sentences. There are are no two ways about that. Caving in to drug dealers is not going to solve a very serious problem.

Cigarettes, Alcohol and Drugs are addictive. There is no ban on the growing of Tobacco. If so, what is the justification for banning the cultivation of Poppy, Coca & Marijuana?
The usage of cigarettes has been declining because of the health warnings. Is there scope to adapt a similar policy for drugs?
It is incorrect to spend tax payer’s funds on providing free health care to addicts, unless the income tax earned from the relevant industry is adequate to cover the cost. Health warnings, educational campaigns on the consequences of drug addiction and creating awareness of the misery of drug addicts might be more successful than bans.

"20. At 1:52pm on 10 Aug 2010, Mike wrote:

For all those who want to legalize drugs I first recommend to do that first at home. Let your family members do it, especially your children.... at the end it's only their choice, right?"

From personal experience I would far prefer my family to over indulge in pot than alcohol. My ex husband was a violent alcoholic who also took drugs. When stoned he was a much nicer person to be around, less violent & quite charming. Get a couple of pints in him & he turned in to an unreasonable ignorant violent thug. It seems you have fallen for the propaganda perpetrated by the American who was scared that the hemp business would usurp the profits from his paper mill.

I $urvived Los Angeles, the alleged "City of the Angels" [sic], for a quarter century. The glorious [sic] War on Drrrugs, actually a War on People, is almost the sole reason for the gang kulture out there. Illegal drrrugs, like the 1930s prohibition on alcholic beverages, creates a huge black market $ystem... and THAT invites innumerable untaxed $treet franchises for gangs, violent $ocial enterprises that slowly morph into guerrillas.

The damn War on Drrrugs is a total and complete failure. Only violent criminals, the violent prison industry and the ubiquitous $ecurity $tate benefit from this horrible and stupid war against people.

" 27. At 2:21pm on 10 Aug 2010, Arthur1958 wrote:
Legalization would not solve the immediate problem. The organizations currently at war with the government would only become more desperate and more violent if their income source were threatened. They would step up other criminal activities, like kidnapping, in attempts to maintain their cash flow. Moreover, a legal Mexican drug industry would be operated by completely different people; these could not transition to legal and peaceful pursuits."

This is a good point. In the context of the Mexican situation legalization would at first cause as many issues as it solves. If you look at the long term effects however you can see it is definitely the best option available to them. If they continue with the bloody stalemate they are fighting, in ten years the borders will be like a military fortress but the cartels will simply come up with another ingenious method of smuggling and drugs consumption and violence would continue to rise or stay level.
If the Mexican government takes the legalization route then for 3-5 years it will be in a state of near turmoil (much like Sicily in the mid 90's) but if the state is determined their opponents will grow weaker with time, as they have less access to funds, and eventually the cartels will be broken into various street level gangs. This doesn’t mean they will no longer be a threat, just that their reach and influence is dramatically reduced. This is the best that can be hoped for and considering this problem has been growing and festering for the past 40 years then it’s not too bad of a result.

Legalising drugs - not under any circumstances - its the same with a number of other things in our society.
Illegal drugs are made so not through the potential harm they do but because of the fear of the effect they may have on society.
The argument that far more people are killed through legal drugs/substances/control is not one that weights heavily with our "masters."
I rather fear that their main concern is control.
Perhaps a very natural concern.

It is the same old song "If you can't beat them Join them." is that what we really want?
Drugs kill, maim and drive many mad. They should only be issued on the order of a doctor.
But why do so many people need to find a way to escape from reality? That is the important question. Until we know the answer, drugs should continue to be banned and anyone found selling them put in jail, if necessary for life. That is the only real way to protect our children.

I think it's worth a try but I honestly don't think politicians want the drug trade to stop. It creates too many jobs - police, lawyers, judges, prison officers etc. If they really wanted to stop all of this they could have done it years ago.

A great example of our total failure on drugs is prisons. In prison we control everything going in and everything going out yet prisons are the place where drugs are most common. How could this be if we seriously wanted to stop it ? There is no other place where authorities control the whole environment.

Politicians should be honest and admit they have no desire to stop the illegal drug trade.

There are two contrasting ideas to try to solve this problem.

The first solution, as the lead-in to this HYS suggests is to legalise drugs and hope for the best.

The polar opposite solution is to jail anyone caught dealing, or in the possetion of even the smallest quantity of drugs, keep them incommunicado, and away from all possibility of access to drugs while in prison, then force them off their drug habits by having them go 'cold turkey'
In that way the drugs trade will die a natural death when their is no 'market' for its drugs.

"38. At 3:20pm on 10 Aug 2010, Inglenda2 wrote:
It is the same old song "If you can't beat them Join them." is that what we really want?
Drugs kill, maim and drive many mad. They should only be issued on the order of a doctor.
But why do so many people need to find a way to escape from reality? That is the important question. Until we know the answer, drugs should continue to be banned and anyone found selling them put in jail, if necessary for life. That is the only real way to protect our children."


It is not "if you can’t beat them join them" it’s more like "the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over again and expecting a different result"

As for your comment that drugs kill and maim, I am sorry but that is not the case. People kill and maim, sometimes under the influence of drugs (alcohol especially) but more often than not sober.
Putting people in jail will not work. Have you seen what Mexican jails are like? 20 people to a cell designed for 10. Locked up all-day, no toilets, bad sanitation. Unless you are in a gang controlled prison, then your life is dependent on who you are affiliated with. But despite this Mexicans still deal drugs.

People want to escape from reality for a variety of reasons, why do you think we have should a bad drinking culture in this country?

'Protect the children' - A typical knee jerk response to this issue. If your children wanted to do drugs then they would. No government ban will stop them as most drugs are easily available in most towns and cities already.

I will make this as clear as possible, the legalization of drugs does not mean the promotion of drugs. You have to educate people to be socially responsible, this would benefit many areas of society and is not just to do with drugs.

These sage words of advice coming from a drug dealer. If indeed long term marijuana use causes schizophrenia then why wouldn't policies be towards promoting a non addictive lifestyle? Too much profit in taxing it to a cash strapped economy? Are these the only brilliant policies our politicians can come up with to get an economy back on track? The government really is the Mafia isn't it? And who, pray tell, will pay for years of therapy for a nation of schizophrenics? Let me guess. The taxpayer? Get ready for more s***** schools, healthcare, public services.
We need that money to pay for your addiction!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

40. At 3:34pm on 10 Aug 2010, Doubting Thomas wrote:

Never going to happen. You know why? Because people want drugs. You cannot physically lock them all up and keep them there until they are 'clean', we don’t have the amount of prisons required, the funds for such action or even the political will (as you will be breaching people’s rights by keeping them incommunicado, it’s more of a tool of totalitarian states than democracies, though not always)

I am getting bored of refuting these simplistic arguments, so I will instead ask this -
Seeing as prohibition has been proven to fail e.g. 1920's America can anyone provide me with a rational, lucid reason for continuing this 'war'?

To all the people saying we should not legalize drugs.

Where are you getting you facts? Have you researched the issue with all available data? Or are you just saying what you have overheard from your neighbors?

The drugs lords have the same opinion as you! They want things to remain the same! You are siding with the drug dealers! If drugs remain illegal they profit! Do you know how much money they make from cocaine? They have so much money they have armies! We cannot fight that with violence. We need to throttle their income.

How will something that hasn't worked for 50 years suddenly start working now? Prohibition doesn't work, it NEVER has!

26. At 2:17pm on 10 Aug 2010, Doubting Thomas wrote:

How many people remember the classic 1973 James Bond movie 'live and let die', where the villian Kananga, played by Yaphet Kotto decides to flood the world with free drugs, in order to hook as many people as possible on his narcotics, and to drive his rivals out of business.

Then, when he had enough people addicted to his drugs, and his rivals eliminated, he could the corner the drugs market and sell his drugs for whatever price he wanted.

because the real world in fact mimics Bond films! if your name is Alan Partridge, maybe..

It is a bit too simplistic to say legalise drugs and the problem will simply go away, what about the extra costs to the police trying to cope with the extra policing burdens being placed upon them, or the massive costs to the public health service dealing with the medical fallout from drug addiction?.

You're correct in your assessment that simply legalising drugs will make all the inherent problems disappear, but at the same time aren't the police actually burdened by having to deal with cases of simple posession for personal use? you wanted to talk about extra policing burdens, how about having their time freed up to fight, say, alcohol-fuelled violence or antisocial behaviour? there is also no evidence from countries that have eased their laws to suggest that legalisation will increase use. in the case of Portugal and Holland, use has actually declined slightly, although I suspect the actual truth is that the numbers haven't tangibly changed.

you're also implying that all drugs are hugely addictive, which isn't the case. I'd go and look at the ACMD's graph of addictiveness vs harm and have a rethink. have a look at where currently legal drugs land..

if you're worried about the burden placed on the NHS, I'm sure that any regulatory framework that levies taxes on currently illegal recreational drugs will more than offset what it costs to treat people. in fact, as the numbers of users won't notably increase if other countries are to go by, a regulation and taxation framework as used with tobacco and alcohol would yield a tidy profit as all the users are currently able to have NHS treatment anyway..

fighting the war on drugs is the same as losing the war on drugs. we lose by not collecting the potential tax revenue, yet we pay to fight it, pay for the treatment of users and pay the social costs of associated criminality.

with a government as cynical as the Tories, I'd have hoped they'd have seen the answer staring them in the face from at least a fiscal perspective. I guess they've got lots of friends in the alcohol and tobacco industries..

Inglenda2 wrote:
But why do so many people need to find a way to escape from reality? That is the important question. Until we know the answer, drugs should continue to be banned and anyone found selling them put in jail, if necessary for life. That is the only real way to protect our children.


Because it's fun.

It isn't an important question because every single one of us knows the reason why people do drugs because each and every one of us uses legal drugs almost every day.

That morning cup of coffee is giving you a caffeine high.
That glass of wine with your meal is giving you an alcohol high.
Sports and exercise give you an adrenaline high.
I could go on at length but I hope that by now you've got the point; people enjoy getting high and have done since humans first walked on this planet.

Are you suggesting that someone who sells cup of coffee should be jailed ?
How about the people who sell wine ?
What about the people who sell kayaks ?

Of course you don't because that would be ridiculous as none of these has a major negative impact on society or the majority of individuals who use them.

So know you have to explain why cannabis doesn't come under this category of "safe" drugs, especially when there isn't a single recorded death caused by cannabis and countless studies have shown it to be far safer than alcohol.

Prohibition doesn't protect children, it endangers them by giving control of controlled drugs over to criminal organisations that have no problem selling them to children or using children to sell them whereas your local off licence and supermarket will ask you for proof of age, they'll also make sure that the drugs they're selling comply with safety legislation that ensures that the product contains only what is written on the label and is of a regulated strength.

If you want to protect children then you should be campaigning for the government to legalise, regulate and tax recreational drugs in the same way we do with alcohol so that we, like Portugal and Holland, could enjoy some of the lowest rates of youth drug use and addiction in Europe.

Legalize drugs and prostitution, regulate both 'industries' and tax them. This would have the dual effect of stopping violent mexican gangs in their tracks, and boosting the economies of all states, esp those on the southern border. Then commence a sweep of illegals, using every means available, adjust the 14th amendent, quit bitching about the 2nd amendment, and hey presto - we Americans have our country back again!!

It's all quite simple.

Incidentally, anyone involved in an RTA where they have been using drugs will henceforth attract a harsher punishment, similar to that of a drunk driver, once they can no longer plead "Oh, but I have a handicap, I'm an addict, you can't do anything to me except send me to rehab on the public dime".

28. At 2:32pm on 10 Aug 2010, Pancha Chandra wrote:

"Drugs are a bane on society. Families have been destroyed and the very fabric of society is under threat once drugs are available without control or restriction. Medical drugs under the strict supervision of doctors should be the norm."

-----------------------

Exactly. So, legalize it, tax it, and regulate it.

All that will happen is the criminals will invent/produce stronger narcotics - that will cause further chaos. As at the moment the vast majority of teenagers do NOT do drugs

What will happen is that they will ALL try it as it is legal - and just like tobacco or alcohol - will BECOME addicted - just as in my neighbourhood the amount of drinking and smoking have reached epic proportions.

Binge drinking anyone?

The traffic accidents under the influence of drugs will soar - Overdosing will increase as the drugs will be cheaper - the long term affects will rapidly reach the costs of tobacco and alcohol to the state (NHS and welfare costs at the very least) BUT these will be ADDITIONAL COSTS to those incurred by alcohol and tobacco. The only reason we have a skewed positive result for drugs is the relative small use of them.

Please do not compare our society with other european ones - because we have ALREADY proved to be UNABLE to cope with legal alcohol - whereas other counties can.

Binge drinking anyone?

Why in heavens name do you think we COULD cope??

BAN DRUGS except for medical purposes.

Cold Turkey treatment for offenders - with PERPETUAL sentences until medically proved to be clean - The criminal would then have a motive to BE drug free. Whereas at the moment they have a motive to use drugs for a high in prison as it is boring otherwise.

Which country legalised modern narcotics in the first place? Sure cocaine was circulated in high society in the 1920s and further back, then the British made money from the opium trade but in todays modern world say, from the 1950s onward where is the centralisiation of drug usage coming from. Barbituates, narcotics, LSD, cocaine, derivatives et al. Which country began it and which ones are now addicts themselves because of their population addictions.

It's no good legalising it. The end users need to be rounded up, rehabilitated, stern sentencing etc. No more tolerance for needle bins outside shops and crazed drug induced or drug needing crime.

It's time the grass roots users were told to say no or pay the price in a commune farm to produce fruit and veg and rehabilitate while they're at it.

Prostitution is ALREADY legal - it is soliciting that isn't.
A girl can legally sell her body for sexual use.

I find it silly the claim "legalise and we will have lower drug use like Holland"

Alcohol is a DRUG and we have the worst drink addition outside of Russia. We will simply have for more over dosing with the then "legal" drugs.

Wonderful!!!

Fox is also calling it to legalized in the U.S. There is great arrogance in many nations, in telling the U.S how to run their affairs.

Considering all the problems in Mexico, Fox should not be one of those anymore than human rights violators in Venezuela and Bolivia

Drug/recreational and alcohol abuse is child abuse because you are teaching your child that you can't cope with life without drugs and alcohol. I don't understand why so little is done to protect children from drug/recreational drug, alcohol abusing parents. As a parent, we need to give our children the best possible start in life. Children know how crazy their parents really are. Why add to their burden?

OMG, I just thought of a solution for Mexico. Legalize drugs and make cheap drug,all inclusive package vacations to Mexican resort communities.
The drug traffic would bolster their tourist industry and Americans would flood down there in droves....I'm so brilliant!

Mexico's crime problem will not be solved by legalization of drugs. Only the naive, or rather those who never been to Mexico, would think so. Mexico is a third world destitute country. Mexico's primary economic engine runs on Gulf oil, on money from family members in USA, tourism and corn. Legalize drugs... there will be another issue and then another.

Holy Cow! Have Mexico legalise drugs? This just means they could employ the existing cartels as government employees. The Mexican gov't is known to be corrupt and apathetic to weakest amongst them. While the concept of legalising drugs is not new or even off the wall, I can't imagine that doing so in Mexico would change anything.

Bro_Winky:

>>Exactly. So, legalize it, tax it, and regulate it.

And you, of course, would be okay if your children will have free, though regulated and taxed, access to cocaine, heroine, and pot? I am sure, going by your logic, you would!

For those who never tried this stuff I really recommend to actually do try it and then comment on the virtues of regulation, taxing and legalization.

Legalising the evil/vicious acts is like making a mockery of the ethical/civilized world; It also amounts to shirking our responsibity to protect the disciplined and law-abiding citizens from the menace of the drugs-it's like giving in before the satan, and that too gutlessly and without a fight. How could anybody even think of legalising the drugs? It is outrageous; it's like dwelling upon the idea of legalising terrorism or rape or any other vices in the world.

If a poor person is found using drugs they are given a stiff prison sentence and a fine and are labelled as scum. The repercussions on their lives from then on are devastating, they are never truly given a second chance and this can often force them back into using drugs.

If a rich person is found using drugs they are given a slap on the hand and their drug use is blamed on "work stress" or they were "just being a lad" or it was "a simple mistake". Their lives continue as normal.

If politicians want us to believe they really cared about ending drug usage they would make sure Judges were more consistent. Drug use amongst the rich is just as abundant as amongst the poor and that's why politicians don't truly want to address the problem.

"Mexico has a very big probelm with drug lords {Crooks} like Afghanistan and many other countries America and europe should make all drugs legal and make them in government factorys in the U.K.{The drugs war is lost } it has been for years. This the only way to stop the killing around the world over drugs and power. The only way.every thing has been tryed to stop them.

The last time I saw this on the news there had been 25,000 murders. This is not a war on drugs, this is a war full stop. My guess is that like all wars it will run its course. Just because this war is not being fought like a “normal” war still makes it a war! Drugs are the catalyst, but also is capitalism. There is a huge profit to be made on drugs. Like all capitalism it is about exploiting the situation at whatever cost and maximising profits, ask a cigarette company, or a car manufacturer. Or a slave trader!
In terms of the drug issue, prescribing is the only solution, funny how this is the one everyone avoids! Drug addicts are not bothered how they get drugs or who off, so long as they get them. Majority of drug addicts are contemplating stopping, most without success. So, if we admit there are drug addicts, and admit that the majority of drug addicts would like an opportunity to stop then a prescribed treatment programme would work like clockwork.
Prescribing would alter the whole dynamics of the drug industry, illegal and legal. It would be a positive start and would see quick results. It seems rather strange to me that there is so much resistance to this approach. Drug addicts are human beings whatever, and they need a chance. Families and victims also need a chance, and prescribing would benefit everyone who is involved or who has been a victim of crime related to drugs.

7. At 12:42pm on 10 Aug 2010, Cydevil wrote:
Minimum sentences for possession (double for dealing):
Cannabis, meth etc. 10 years/g
Ecstasy etc. 10 years/tablet
Cocaine, crack, heroin etc. 25 years/g

Rewards for informants, leading to such sentences:
£10 000 cannabis, meth, ecstaay
£25 000 cocaine, crack, heroin

If more money can be made from informing than from dealing, then the trade would collapse!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No it wouldnt you would see alot of small time mom and pop type homegrown people going down and the international cartels would still remain untouched imho.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As for legalisation in mexico i dont think legalising it will stop the territorial battles that go on between the gangs/cartels that control the drugs.

Hard to say...but Mexico has a record of drug violence and lets face it there has been many times when officials from their Police, Armed Forces and sometime Judges have been involved in drug trafficking...
Sometimes things change...worth giving it a try...unless you're at the wrong end of a gun...

It is of no interest to us what they do over there. If the authorities think it will stop the violence then they should legalise drugs.

What would you expect, from someone who did absolutely NOTHING about the drug cartels, in Mexico, while he was President?

Also, he used NAFTA for his advantage, but none of that, ever reached the working class.

Wow there are some uninformed rants on here!

To answer some of them - yes, I'd much rather my kids, when they reached an appropriate age, had access to cannibis or ecstasy than tobacco and alcohol!

As for those advocating that people be executed - dear god! You advocate ending people's lives because they like a different social lubricant than you do! You're SICK.

58. At 5:53pm on 10 Aug 2010, Mike wrote:

Bro_Winky:

>>Exactly. So, legalize it, tax it, and regulate it.

And you, of course, would be okay if your children will have free, though regulated and taxed, access to cocaine, heroine, and pot? I am sure, going by your logic, you would!

---------------

You must be a lazy parent if that is what you're worried about...

Obama should negotiate the import of food like fruit, nuts, berries, mushrooms, and vegetables from Mexico. Congress imposed too many prohibitions. The move would unpopularize street gangs trafficking narcotics.

Gothnet:

>To answer some of them - yes, I'd much rather my kids, when they reached an appropriate age, had access to cannibis or ecstasy than tobacco and alcohol!

I am fine with your kids smoking pot and taking ecstasy - not mine.

Bro_Winky:

>>You must be a lazy parent if that is what you're worried about...

Is this a joke?

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox has called for drugs to be legalised, I agree.
The current Mexican president, Felipe Calderon last week called for a debate, but he said he personally opposed the idea.
Mexico through the financial support from the United States (using money from the Mérida Initiative, which as of year-end 2009, had actually received @ $215M of the American pledged $1.6B). In fact the War on Drugs is primarily an American program.
The initiatives are intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of psychoactive drugs. This War on Drugs has been going on since at least 1971 when Richard Nixon first used the term. So well after 30 years, how well do you think the program is working? Isn't it time to try something new?
In May, 2009, Obama did something absolutely new: President Obama said that his administration would stop usingthe term "War on Drugs". There! Solved! No longer exists!!
Oh but it does: The CIA, DEA, State Department, and other US government departments and agencies have been implicated in various parts of the drug trafficking operations. e.g. A 1986 lawsuit filed by 2 journalists showed that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other parties were engaged in criminal acts, including financing the purchase of arms with the proceeds of cocaine sales.
In the six years from 2000–2006, the US spent $5.0B on Plan Colombia, an effort to eradicate coca production in Colombia. The main result of this effort was to shift coca production into more remote areas. The overall acreage cultivated for coca in Colombia at the end of the six years was found to be about the same. Meanwhile, cultivation in the neighboring countries of Peru and Bolivia actually increased.
The War on Drugs is not working...and it's not working after 30 + years of "effort". You know what they say about people doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
Alberto Fujimori, President of Peru from 1990–2000, described US foreign drug policies as "failed". In fact, he went further and said that from 1980 to 1990, production crew 10 times over.
Over $8B is expended annually towards arresting and prosecuting nearly 800,000 people for MARIJUNANA offenses in the United States, and this was in 2005. Imagine the amount being spent since 2005 on MARIJUNANA + all other drugs.
It's not possible that the United States does fails to realise that its confrontation with drugs is not working; so, tell me why the United States stays with the same sort program?
Legalize the stuff.
Let's see how that works.

If I were in the illegal drugs business I would pay $$millions to support anybody who would stop the legalization or decriminalization (what a cop-out phrase!) of drugs. In the USA this issue is known as "the third rail of American politics". I could be TOTALLY for the legalization of drugs to stop this lethal nonsense but I would wait for my opponent to voice his agreement with legalization and then with all of my RIGHTEOUS indignation claim that my opponent was trying to turn our children into drug addicts!!!! The vote would be mine without question. As long as I could play the Righteous card I win!! However we lose.
The Saint Valentines Day Massacre in Chicago by Al Capone in the '30's was all about territory to sell illegal booze. Today we don't see killings anywhere about alcohol but it is common to find murders by the thousands (approaching 30,000 since 2006 in Mexico) EVERYWHERE IT IS ILLEGAL. I believe in the USA we are prepared to fight against illegal drugs right down to the last Mexican! If the USA has spent over $1 Trillion since the War on Drugs has started, we know that whatever we have spent, and continue to spend, represents a fraction of what the drug cartels have made in profit. If you accept that premise than you can see, if I were a drug lord, why I would want to keep drugs illegal. Let's question the financial support of SOME (not all) of the more radical anti drug groups.
We have alcohol and we have alcoholics. We have Mothers Against Drunk Drivers and we have the Alcoholics Anonymous, etc. to try to treat this problem. We live with it in spite of its dangers because we have to. tried to ban it but failed. Lets do the same with drugs. Will it cost lives? already does. Can it be controlled? Is alcohol in control? Lets put 50% of the money we spend on interdiction toward treatment and we will keep it under control.

I am fine with legalizing hard drugs. lets say heroine and acid, in England or lets say in liberal Venezuela. Lets use them as guinea pigs, so to speak, and then, if it works, do the same here in the States. I am all for it!!!!!

59. At 6:03pm on 10 Aug 2010, S C MEHTA wrote:

Wow...OKeedokee. Here's my favorite quote from you:

"It is outrageous; it's like dwelling upon the idea of legalising terrorism or rape or any other vices in the world."

What do you think the key difference between rape, terrorism, and using drugs is? Rape and terrorism specifically require and target other people. When someone who uses drugs has access to cheap and quality product their need to rob-etc, is eliminated.

Pretending like people don't want to get hi is just plain outdated.

At 6:07pm on 10 Aug 2010, Lewis Fitzroy wrote:
"Mexico has a very big probelm with drug lords {Crooks} like Afghanistan and many other countries America and europe should make all drugs legal and make them in government factorys in the U.K.{The drugs war is lost } it has been for years. This the only way to stop the killing around the world over drugs and power. The only way.every thing has been tryed to stop them.

__________________________________________________________________________

I do not believe in the "if you can't beat them, join them" argument.

If, for example you apply the same kind of thinking to road traffic offenses, you could get rid of speed limits altogether, on the argument that it is impossible to enforce them completely, then you could get rid of speed cameras.



As to your suggestion that government take over the production of drugs, will they not be sued for massive compensation from people whose health is damaged from their use, just like tobacco companies are today?.

70. At 7:26pm on 10 Aug 2010, Mike wrote:

Bro_Winky:

>>You must be a lazy parent if that is what you're worried about...

Is this a joke?

-------------

I wish it was. If you as a parent have to rely on the law to prevent your children to using cocaine or heroin, you're not doing your job well.



Why no concern about your children having access to alcohol, cigarettes, power tools, or handguns? All are legal to varying degrees, all just as dangerous.

All nations should continue the fight against illicit drug use, abuse and addiction. Illicit addictive drugs are the scourge of civilized moral living, and the bane of creative productivity for scientific progress. Research shows that "being high on drugs" only causes lakadaisical attitudes of mental lazyness and moral vegetation that reduce human beings to the status of mere breathing mammals with no motivation for work or desire for constructive thinking. Addicts just "lay there," enjoy their "trips," and "vegetate" as "couch potatoes" while achieving nothing and going nowhere!
Where would Western civilization be if we lost the work ethic, our scientific edge, our spiritual-moral foundation for protecting life and securing private property, and sustaining the rule of law for preservation of nation-building activities? Abusive Illicit drug addiction accompanied by sexual depravity is the precursor to the fall of civilized living that will endanger economic productivity as well as pave the way for the emergence of political fascism. Civilized society is too precious an accomplishment to be imperiled by drugs that destroy human life and destiny in the earth. Young people deserve a drug-free environmnent with secure opportunities for healthy psychological development, educational fulfillment, and professional achievement.

Totally illogical to compare rape murder or any other form of violence to the taking of drugs. Those are crimes against others, drug taking is only you and the substance. I am not talking about the stealing or violence to obtain it, this is again, a huge part of the problem.
While I personally never have indulged, I believe in the freedom of the individual to make their own choices. Legalise all of it, let people do what they want and take what they want. 7-11 Heroin Sir, would you like the Strawberry or Vanilla? Cocaine, we have a two for one offer today.
Of course, at first many will overindulge and injure themselves. But when their friends see what is happening to the poor suckers, most of them will say "Whoa, not for me' While it is illegal it has that taste of adventure and danger that young people thrive on. Legalise it, tax it, and see how many people lose interest, and look for the next thrill.

Bo_Wink:


>>I wish it was. If you as a parent have to rely on the law to prevent your children to using cocaine or heroin, you're not doing your job well.

I rely on the stuff to somehow not be present at the place where my kids are. As it happens all that stuff is very addictive especially for children.

>>Why no concern about your children having access to alcohol, cigarettes, power tools, or handguns? All are legal to varying degrees, all just as dangerous.

Are you comparing child access to cocaine, heroine and other similar substances to child access to alcohol, cigarettes, and power tools? Did I understand you correctly? Is this a joke?

At 8:29pm on 10 Aug 2010, Amazed wrote:

"Totally illogical to compare rape murder or any other form of violence to the taking of drugs. Those are crimes against others, drug taking is only you and the substance."

It would be good if the drug user only endangered himself. This however is not the case. How many of those who wish to legalise drugs also drive a car?

#79 Mike

"Are you comparing child access to cocaine, heroine and other similar substances to child access to alcohol, cigarettes, and power tools? Did I understand you correctly? Is this a joke?"

No, it's perfectly serious and very comparable, especially the alcohol and cigarettes part. Both are legal and harmful.

Heroine is a whole different ball game than most other things as it is *so* addictive, which is why it should be treated as a health issue rather than a criminal one. Cannbis, ecstasy, LSD, all these are less harmful than alcohol and tobacco as far as the science is concerned.

Check out this BBC story from 2006 -

https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5230006.stm

Oh and Mike?

#70 - "I am fine with your kids smoking pot and taking ecstasy - not mine."

Good, then you won't mind getting out of the way of the legalisation effort and bringing your kids up to share your values, will you?

Or do you need the state to do it for you, and punish everyone that transgresses?

#80 Inglenda

"It would be good if the drug user only endangered himself. This however is not the case. How many of those who wish to legalise drugs also drive a car?"

How many that want to keep alcohol legal also drive a car?
I'm sorry, this is just nonsense. You don't drink and drive, the same rules apply to any intoxicant, be it alcohol, prescribed painkillers or anything else.

I think this issue will be a mute point soon because Oakland, California (Gerry Brown-ville) just passed legislation that approved factory marijuana plants that will deeply undercut marijuana prices. I'm not sure what the cartels will do now unless they undercut the factories. Hey, this drug war might just be getting started. Livin' La Vida Loca. It already takes up to 36 hours to be seen in a California emergency room. How much worse can life in the border cities get?

Vicente Fox is correct on this one. The war on drugs is full of uneven tactics and has cost much more money,death, and destruction than what would have happened if the drugs were legalized.

How hypocritical is it to have alcohol and tobacco legalized when both cause more harm, death, and accidents than all other illegal substances put together???

Also, the classification of drugs is faulty. How is it that marijuana is classified as a drug that is more harmful than opiates?? This started when drug companies in the 1920s saw that some of their industry would lose out if these other substances weren't "controlled". It has never really been about health and safety...it all comes down to which industry has the most power and money...the pharmaceutical industry!!!

Our prison system is also making money hand over fist by incarcerating persons on trivial marijuana charges. Just look online at websites that bid for cheap prison labor and goods/services contracts...quite a lucrative industry in the States!!

The bottom line is, by legalizing drugs that people are going to use anyway along with the already legalized substances at their disposal, we can stop many of the incarcerations that have only lead to further destruction of peoples' lives instead of helping them with treatment. Greedy corporations and government industries that prey on these unfortunate victims will have to find other groups to exploit. Drug lords will always be around, but much of their harm and power will be pulled out from under them.

78. At 8:29pm on 10 Aug 2010, Amazed wrote:

Totally illogical to compare rape murder or any other form of violence to the taking of drugs. Those are crimes against others, drug taking is only you and the substance. I am not talking about the stealing or violence to obtain it, this is again, a huge part of the problem.
While I personally never have indulged, I believe in the freedom of the individual to make their own choices. Legalise all of it, let people do what they want and take what they want. 7-11 Heroin Sir, would you like the Strawberry or Vanilla? Cocaine, we have a two for one offer today.

= = = = = ==

It is obvious that you haven't indulged - or know any drug addicts.

It does not only involve you and your drug - It affects the entire community and the health service

Or are you advocating simply allowing these children and adults to die without any form of help?

You know nothing of the effects of heroine and cocaine.

I am appalled at the lack of knowledge shown in this post.

Gothnet:

>> No, it's perfectly serious and very comparable, especially the alcohol and cigarettes part. Both are legal and harmful.

You are comparing heroine and cocaine to tobacco and alcohol?

>Heroine is a whole different ball game than most other things as it is *so* addictive, which is why it should be treated as a health issue rather than a criminal one. Cannbis, ecstasy, LSD, all these are less harmful than alcohol and tobacco as far as the science is concerned.

Just out of curiosity did you ever try LSD yourself or you are relying on the BBC article only? And I really like your answer to Heroine thing - very creative. Heroine addiction is on the rise especially in Russia and Europe and I am sure the Europeans, and especially the Russians, would "love" to legalize it.

>Good, then you won't mind getting out of the way of the legalisation effort and bringing your kids up to share your values, will you?

Me allowing drugs to be legalized so that at a local 7/11 you can by cocaine or LSD over the counter? Is this a joke?

>Or do you need the state to do it for you, and punish everyone that transgresses?

I am fine with your kids taking LSD and transgressing in the privacy of your home as long as they don't hurt my kids or God forbid drive a car. I've seen children who were exposed to LSD at an early age - God forbid any parent to go through this and see their child become brain damaged. If it's okay with you it's definitely not okay with me, and most likely with it's not okay for 99% of other parents out there.

I don't altogether like it, but I think I'm in favour of legalising drugs. The reality is, as with Prohibition, banning them hasn't worked, and has led to vast riches for criminals and an explosion of violence, especially in Mexico.

When Prohibition ended, a large stream of revenue for criminals literally dried up. I think it will be the same with drugs. I'm not so naive as to think that criminals will turn into nice guys overnight, or at all, but it will be one big area that is denied to them.

As for the "floodgates" or "slippery slope" argument, it doesn't ring true. If we legalise drugs, it doesn't mean we have to legalise rape and murder as well, or that we decide human trafficking is okay. Those things will still be crimes. All sorts of laws have been repealed in the past, and it didn't lead to a whole range of others going the same way.

Legalising drugs also does not mean we have to give them to our children, or allow children to use them. It's perfectly possible to have a lower age limit, as with the sale of alcohol and tobacco.

There's an argument for allowing adults to do what they like with their own bodies, even if it isn't good for them. If they commit crimes while under the influence, they will be subject to prosecution, just as they would with alcohol.

It's time governments opened up a real debate on this.

Mexico must legalize commercial sales of cannabis and coca. Medicinal purchases are perfectly legal in the United States. Mexicans would prefer to freely use. The repressive penal system installed by a former regime of corrupt, alcoholic politicians failed.

I guarantee if the government started manufacturing drugs in state run factories like some posts on this forum seem to suggest, people will start claiming that governments are really out to control their populations through drugs.


Like I said previously, imprison all drug addicts in specially guarded jails where no drugs can reach them, and force them to go cold turkey before they can be released.


After all, if the drug dealers have nobody to sell their drugs to, they will eventually go out of business.

Group turns in petitions to make marijuana the "lowest possible priority" for Kalamazoo law enforcement

Source: https://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2010/08/group_turns_in_petitions_to_ma.html



Five Ways the Drug War Hurts Kids: A Conversation with Neill Franklin of LEAP

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzOHQdKRANA&feature=player_embedded



On the street, you can see the harm caused by drug laws

Source: https://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/street%20harm%20caused%20drug%20laws/3334743/story.html



HIV only winner in useless drug war

Source: https://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/mindelle_jacobs/2010/07/26/14835731.html

Drug Decriminalization in Portugal:
Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies

The data show that, judged by virtually every metric, the Portuguese decriminalization framework has been a resounding success. Within this success lie self-evident lessons that should guide drug policy debates around the world.

Full Report: https://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080


Report by the CATO Institute.
The Cato Institute was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane. It is a non-profit public policy research foundation headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Institute is named for Cato's Letters, a series of libertarian pamphlets that helped lay the philosophical foundation for the American Revolution.

Drug Decriminalization in Portugal

Film featuring Glenn Greenwald, Attorney and Best-selling Author; with comments by Peter Reuter, Department of Criminology, University of Maryland; moderated by Tim Lynch, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute.

https://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=5887

when given a choice between what is good or bad for the people, the government ALLWAYS chooses the bad option. the government is the biggest drug dealer and doen't want any competition. thats why the laws against smuggling drugs are so severe. if drugs were legal, the government looses huge profits because legal means the price drops drastically. legal means we would need less police and prisons, the government doesn't want that either. more police and more prisons means more control over people. it really makes you think what the intentions of the government are when they bail out the money changers while these same people are forcloseing on millions of homes putting people into the streets. its obvious that the government is working against the people so forget about them ever doing the right thing.

Solving the problem of Mexicon violence is at the top of my to do list

No, Their Authorities have it perfectly wrong. Those of the 'Murder for greed culture' will simply reset their sights onto just where they logically fit into the latest briberous charade that's then promoted.
Generations of lost will become far more lost in the meanwhile, as the direct and official policy of drug-abuse makes its scorching wrath.

I agree with Mexico's ex-President Mr Vincent Fox that though drugs are bad, legalising them will reduce the violence prevalent among drug gangs. Even in USA marijuana-smoking is a common sight among college students that include intellectuals. Vast resources in terms of policing is spent on catching the offenders, penalising or jailing them and yet there is no let-down in their number. Intake of light drugs with some restrictions should be legalised both in USA and Mexico while the sale of stronger ones should be dealt with firmly. This will greatly reduce violence and mayhem among gangs in both the countries and snub the smuggling of drugs to a considerable extent.

Cydevil wrote:
Minimum sentences for possession (double for dealing):
Cannabis, meth etc. 10 years/g
Ecstasy etc. 10 years/tablet
Cocaine, crack, heroin etc. 25 years/g

Rewards for informants, leading to such sentences:
£10 000 cannabis, meth, ecstasy
£25 000 cocaine, crack, heroin

I couldn't believe the lack of foresight in this comment.
There are just over 7g in a quarter of an ounce- the size of the average lump of hash- You suggest we lock someone up for 70 years for smoking a joint?- and you want 10 years per tab of E? In 1992 an estimated 1 million E's were taken in the UK. So that's 10 million prison years right there..Google it.
You going to pay for all this Cy?
I don't think so.
Do you actually listen to the news or read a paper? We can barely afford to run essential services in this country let alone pay to lock millions more up for the rest of their lives. Cheaper to put a fence round the whole country and impose 24 hour curfew.
And on the informant thing... Why do you think places like Columbia and Mexico are so dangerous for anyone who says anything about the drug lords? You think a serious dealer would think twice about rubbing someone out here if we did that?

In case you hadn't realised Cy, anywhere in the world that imposes such draconian measures has drug and and violence problems on a par with Apocalypse Now.
Drugs are here, and here to stay- find other alternatives to the problem because the old ones have failed-miserably- and yours would bankrupt the UK in a day.
It's a great pity we can't lock people away for being deeply stupid isn't it?- It would keep them safer AND it would save the country a fortune!

Cydevil wrote: "If more money can be made from informing than from dealing, then the trade would collapse!"

Sounds like a great way to accuse millions of innocent people. Besides, the incentive to murder informants and accusers would still be there. Are you going to be the first to put yourself and your family in the cross-hairs?

Legalize and regulate. Destroy the profitability.

San Diegan here. The folks demonizing the legalization of marijuana should go study history. It is not a defeat, but a stand against those who profit from the obscene profits guaranteed through prohibition. In California, those profiting are the pharmaceutical companies (who will undoubtedly profit legally also), the prison and law enforcement industries, the drug cartels who supply, the street gangs who distribute, politicians who can turn their backs on a real epidemic to fund a popular war against a phantom enemy, and whoever else happens to become 'corrupted' through involvement with this prohibition (judges, cops, politicians, border patrol, etc). Legalization allows for, at the very least, some control over this black market. You must fight the easy impulse to rail blindly against drug abuse. It is not so simple as that.

I would also argue that banning bad decisions is no way to cultivate stronger character, nationally or individually.