Thanks for the thread, IDemo.

but i would absolutely support the end of draconian minimum sentences, which destroy countless lives as much or more than drugs

and make the 'land of the free' the number one incarcerator of the world

I can't understand why any government should have the right to tell its population which drugs it can or cannot use. Tobacco, alcohol, 2 of arguably the most addictive and destructive drugs know to us are legal and easily available, why are "some drugs" forbidden? Most of the negative effects associated with some drugs are a direct result of the lifestyle addicts of that drug adopt in order to feed their addiction.

Check out the free heroin trials that the British government enacted. For years registered addicts could go into clinics to receive their daily fix, and then went out into the world to work their daily jobs and live normal lives.

It's not the drug that's the problem, it's the "war", a war the government fights against its own citizens.

maybe not the really hard stuff, but medium up to cocaine

as the baby boomers came into adulthood, drug testing became a potential with any gainfully employed job, and drug use among those with decent jobs quietly dropped vary fast and very hard. drug use really isnt acceptable among this group, even if it once was

am i ok with the intrusion and loss of freedom? --> not necessarily

am i ok, that any positive effects were for one class, while devastating to another?--> absolutely not

that said, i cant ignore that pilots are in the air, managed by air traffic controllers, semi drivers are on the road, doctors and nurses are on duty, people's rights are protected by lawyers, and all of their equipment is designed by engineers, along with countless other activities and occupations that can profoundly affect other people's lives, regardless of what social class you are, be it the same class, the 1 percent or the urban poor

===> and they all fear drug testing in the performance of their duties -- many who didnt fear consequences of drugs in their teens

even though I'm not completely comfortable with the proposition, i do believe there is some benefit, at times critical benefit -- legalization could put all of that in jeopardy

not a perfect answer, but an honest one

Companies don't drug test because they want you to go to jail, they just don't want addicts working there. Pilots, ATC's, etc. will still need to prove they are capable of doing their jobs - and NOT under the influence of drugs. And to think that because heroin becomes legal everyone is going to rush out to try it - that's ridiculous.

Just saying...

i believe very strongly that many who are prescribed oxycontin, and then tapered off would be far more likely to try heroin if it were legal, because that's the largest growing group of new heroin users now - but many simply wont cross the legal line, and get off the oxycontin as their doctor wants them to. if heroin were legal, a patient could think, well, i'll just go a little longer with the heroin then get off it later - it's essentially the same thing - the patient has already accepted the idea of taking heroin (if they understand what oxycontin is)

I'm glad you are not in charge of drug policy, if you think those who suffer from them do so at their 'own damn fault'

But by not spending 1.5 TRILLION dollars on the drug war, spend the money on 1) EDUCATION 2) TREATMENT 3) In the worst case provide people with drugs that:

1) Are made in controlled pharmaceutical labs.
2) The dosage is CONSISTANT.
3) Free clean needles
4) Every opportunity is given to wean off these harmful drugs.

People make mistakes. Your solution is basically keep doing what we've been doing. My solution is to treat drug use and abuse as a disease. like alcoholism, and give them, first, safer and more consistent drugs without the dangerous adjuncts that are unknown by the user, and provide free treatment options.

I think if I had been in charge of drug policy day 1, we would be a hell of a lot better off. If you were in charge, no change. So you let the MJ smokers go free. Most anyone with common sense would do that. What else should be done. According to you - NOTHING!

how exactly, is my earlier post

"i dont know if i support legalization

but i would absolutely support the end of draconian minimum sentence"

no change?

As I said, there are some things that are common sense. It's the uncommon sense I'm looking for.

That's the purpose of every War On war.

the war on drugs. The profiteers do quite well, we the people, not so much if at all.

Single payer healthcare? An end to poverty?

It'll be sucked into the MIC contracts. Just because there is up to an extra 1.5T$, it doesn't obviate the underlaying current spending priorities of the country.

Thus the "unimaginable" comment!

putting substantially out of proportion numbers of minorities in prison compared to whites and in turn disrupting or tearing apart the family unit which increases the chances of new generations either getting into trouble and remaining or spiraling into poverty.

Add poorly recruited/trained and ever increasing militarized police forces which serves to disconnect and expand a chasm between them and the people they're sworn to serve and protect along with an immoral, corruptive for profit prison industry and you have the ingredients for a 21st century version of slavery.

It can make the less than 1% richer but at that point it becomes as much an issue about being addicted to power just for power's sake as anything else. Siphoning it away from the people by whatever means necessary, disenfranchisement from the system, ie; 'war on drugs;' or expanding racial/cultural division and creating distraction by their corporate media minions when that fails.

The self-appointed representatives of the interests of people of color, who disproportionately support corporate Democrats rather than progressives (or more accurately social justice issues rather than economic justice issues), claiming our progressives aren't as good on issues relevant to people of color, those same posters rarely have the war on drugs as a priority problem, if they even have a problem with it at all. Something in that scenario doesn't add up, interesting rabbit hole to look down.

I've always maintained that it's also a way to suppress hippies and people on the left fringe who are into consciousness expansion, that all too often gets left out of the equation. Of course the vast majority of the victims of this "war" are people of color and that is where the focus should be.

which very coincidently was in it's infancy when the 'War on Drugs!!!' fever was at it's highest in the mid-late '80s

providing cover to the weasel politicians passing the draconian laws that assured decades of guaranteed revenue to the new private prisons

all part of the prison industrial complex

and all the others involved in that "war" would have to get real jobs (probably without all the benefits, legal and otherwise).

that prohibition of anything does not work...except to enrich the bank accounts of the folks involved with enforcing the prohibition...

Take Portugal, for example, who ended their "war on drugs" decades ago...

has worked as well as the abstinence only policy.

2 fine examples of U.S. 'exceptionalism'.

As long as crooks, cons, and liars are in charge, the many examples

of U.S. exceptionalism will continue.

You can't have a functioning government when the politicians

and the Supreme Court represent the needs of corporations, Wall Street,

and the Military Industrial Complex.

Which do the rethugs value most, war on drugs or war on Christianity?