Drug Legalization

Back to the example you mentioned, my point was that meth itself likely did not cause him to kill his son. He already had a long history of violence. While he did it on meth, meth didn't make him do it, he did it himself, because he is a terrible person or mentally ill or whatever reason. If meth were the cause, why wouldn't that sort of thing happen more often? The vast majority of people that use meth have no problem with it, and the vast majority of those that do have a problem with it aren't murderers. "Is it not obvious to you that if some one takes drugs that are illegal for a reason, then they be prone to do other illegal actions?" Yes, drugs are illegal for a reason. Do you know what that reason is? The original drug laws were founded on racism and lies. In the 1930's, Mexicans were competing with whites for jobs. The government began a smear campaign against marijuana, because marijuana laws could be used to imprison non-whites competing for jobs. In 1936, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics stated that "prolonged use of Marihuana frequently develops a delirious rage which sometimes leads to high crimes, such as assault or murder. Hence Marihuana has been called the 'killer drug.' . . . Marihuana sometimes gives man the lust to kill, unreasonably and without motive. Many cases of assault, rape, robbery, and murder are traced to the use of Marihuana." [1] They also stated that "50 percent of the violent crimes committed in the districts occupied by Mexicans, Turks, Filipinos, Greeks, Spaniards, Latin-Americans and Negroes can be traced to the abuse of Marihuana cigarettes." [1] Similar campaigns resulted in the criminalization of opium (said to have caused Chinese to rape white women and commit other violent crimes) and cocaine (supposedly caused blacks to rape white women, etc). [1] Bonnie, Richard J. and Charles H. Whitebread. The Marijuana Conviction: A History of Marijuana Prohibition in the United States. (New York: Lindesmith Center, 1999 (reprint). You also state that if someone is willing to take drugs, they may also be prone to do other illegal actions. First, this is only true for a small minority of drug users. Second, so what? The disregard for the law is inherent in the person, not the drugs. If someone is willing to break the law and hurt people, legalization of drugs won't change that either way. People with disregard for human life will have that disregard whether drugs are legal or not. You use the example of an ecstasy addict hallucinating and endangering his family. While ecstasy does not cause hallucinations, let's say he was dropping acid and endangering his family with his hallucinations. This isn't an argument that drugs should be illegal. Irresponsible people will do irresponsible things. If his access to illegal drugs was restricted, he might just drink alcohol, which is far more dangerous to those around you than any psychedelic. As for theft making drugs more available to kids, where is your evidence of this? Marijuana, which is illegal, is easier for high-school aged kids to get than alcohol, which is legal. [2]f drugs are illegal, then they are sold in the black market by drug dealers that don't care what age the buyer is. Legalizing drugs could actually make it harder for children to get them. [2] http://www.casacolumbia.org... "What REAL benefits are there to making all drugs legal?" The biggest benefit is the great reduction in crime. Gangs in US inner cities would disappear. Latin American drug cartels currently killing tens of thousands and destabilizing governments would lose their source of income and dissolve. The Taliban and other terrorist groups would lose their main source of income. But what about increased drug use? Wouldn't an increase in drug users cause an increase in crime? No. In fact, crime among drug users would probably decrease. There would be an increase in drug users, yes. But where would these new drug users come from? The new users would have to come from the group of people that respected the law too much to use drugs while they were illegal. Those people are unlikely to become criminals. As I showed earlier, drug use does not cause violent crime. Violent crime committed by drug users is generally the result of people who were violent anyway. But what about addicts stealing to support their habit? If drugs were legalized, the price would fall to a fraction of the black market price. Marijuana, for example, is predicted to fall by as much as 80% if Proposition 19 passes in California. [3] Addicts would need less money to support their habit, so they wouldn't need to steal nearly as much. [3] http://www.rand.org... Another benefit to legalizing drugs would be to protect innocent citizens from overzealous drug warriors. Many innocent people become victims of corrupt DEA agents or police officers in the drug war. Particularly dangerous to every private citizen are asset forfeiture laws, (police can seize anything they believe is connected with any crime, without a trial or hearing. Innocence of the crime is usually irrelevant.), as the following example illustrates: "The owner of a $5 million California ranch refused to negotiate with officials who wanted to merge the property into a park system. Subsequently a search warrant was obtained for a drug squad raid on the rancher's home. When applying for the warrant, police said an informant had reported thousands of marijuana plants on the property. Police did not tell the judge they were skeptical of the informant's credibility. In the application, one officer swore to what he was told by another officer, but the other officer's statement was false (by using this technique neither officer could be accused of perjury). Nor was the judge told that more than one secret warrantless search had recently been made of the ranch land without finding a single marijuana plant. Maps handed to all members of the strike team included handwritten notations saying '200 acres' and '80 acres sold for $800,000 in 1991 in same area.'" When the drug squad burst into the ranch couple's home, the wife started screaming, 'Don't shoot me! Don't kill me!' as team members manhandled her. The commotion apparently roused her sleeping husband who ran downstairs with a pistol. Squad members told him to lower the firearm, and as he obeyed they shot him to death. They ejected the woman from the house while she ran to her stricken husband. No marijuana was found in the house or anywhere on the 250 acres. The county prosecutor admitted the raid 'was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit the ranch for the government.' Governmental desire to merge the ranch into parkland may explain the otherwise curious presence of U.S. Park Service agents in the drug raid team." [4] [4] Miller, Richard Lawrence. Drug Warriors and Their Prey: from Police Power to Police State. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1996. Print. 105-106. Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.mpp.org...