Legality of Marijuana in the US

Adam, thank you again, for this spirited debate. I stand by my answers in round three, and I stand by my use of round two, to focus on your theme that "Marijuana is a little less potent than opium". That concept is so central to our differing views, that it deserved devoting an entire round to its refutation.I do take exception to your arguments stated in the previous round, as it relates to the Netherlands. There drug policy is widely misunderstood. I have listed below a few bullet points of their policy, as well as an official link to Holland's website."- The Netherlands is famous for its tolerant drugs policy. But a lot of people don’t realize that drugs are in fact illegal in the Netherlands. Understanding the Dutch drug policy can spare you a lot of trouble.- All drugs are forbidden in the Netherlands. It is illegal to produce, possess, sell, import and export drugs. - The drug policy in the Netherlands aims: to reduce the demand for drugs, the supply of drugs and the risks to drug users, their immediate surroundings and society.- The Dutch recognize that it is impossible to prevent people from using drugs altogether. Coffee shops are therefore allowed to sell small amounts of soft drugs. This pragmatic approach means that authorities can actually focus on the big criminals who profit from drugs and who supply hard drugs.- Facts- The Dutch policy on drugs has been reasonably successful compared to the policies pursued in other countries, especially when it comes to prevention and care. The number of users of various types of drugs is no greater than in other countries, while the figure for drug-related deaths, at 2.4 per million inhabitants, is the lowest in Europe. "http://www.holland.com...As to your argument "Some people justify the usage of Marijuana and Cannabis by claiming that there are functioning and non-functioning drug users. The sources I have found claim that this is highly untrue." I have a two word answer for you, Snoop Dogg. This observation comes courtesy of our very own Garret."I would love him to quote where ANY of his sources claim there is NO SUCH THING as a functioning marijuana user. Besides, we all know Snoop Dogg (or is it Snoop Lion?), the famous pothead who told Reddit he smokes 81 blunts a day! Considering he has sold 30 million albums worldwide, coaches a youth football league and high school football team, and is the chairman of a Priority Records, it would be silly to call him 'non-functioning." GarretKadeDupree, debate.org. My argumentAs a Nation, rather then spending resources on marijuana enforcement, treating addiction is where we must devote our money, time, and energy. The Global Commission on Drug Policies, details the tremendous benefits in drug treatment. A small portion is quoted below."If a substantial proportion of drug users can be attracted and retained in an effective form ofdrug treatment for long enough for the treatment to work, demand for drugs in thatcommunity decreases.""The finding of a population effect of drug treatment is unusual. Drug treatment is usuallypoorly funded and therefore does not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the majorityof drug users, even if many drug users sought help.""During alcohol prohibition in the USA (1920-1933), treatment for alcoholism became scarce(Levine, Reinarman, 2010). It should come as no surprise therefore that the quality andquantity of treatment for illicit drug use today is strongly influenced by the prevailing punitiveand hostile attitudes to drugs and drug users that follows from global drug prohibition. Ingeneral, the more punitive the approach to drug use and drug users, the worse the availabledrug treatment is.One of the few studies comparing directly the cost effectiveness of drug law enforcementwith drug treatment was carried out for cocaine in the USA (Rydell CP, Everingham 1994).For a $US 1.00 investment, the social benefit was estimated to be: 15 cents for coca planteradication in South America; 32 cents for interdiction of refined cocaine between SouthAmerica and the USA; 52 cents for US domestic law enforcement (customs, police); and$US 7.48 for treatment of cocaine users. Nevertheless, cost-ineffective drug lawenforcement was allocated an estimated 93% of US government resources allocated to thethreat of cocaine while drug treatment received only 7% despite being far more costeffective. Another RAND study estimated that the reduction in cocaine use in the USA for a$US 1 million investment was 13 kg for mandatory minimum sentences, 26 kg forconventional sentences and 100 kg for drug treatment of cocaine users (Caulkins, Rydell,Schwabe, Chiesa 1997). It should be noted that the methadone and buprenorphinetreatment for heroin users is much more effective and cost effective for heroin users thancurrent (non-pharmacological treatments) for cocaine users. Therefore if a comparison wereto be made of the cost effectiveness of drug law enforcement for heroin with drug treatmentof heroin users, the disparity estimated by this RAND study is likely to be even greater thanthat found for cocaine.Alcohol consumption in communities is very unequally distributed: the heaviest drinking10% consume 50% of the alcohol drunk by the community while the heaviest drinking 20%consume 70% of the alcohol. It is much harder to study the distribution of drugs like heroin,cocaine and amphetamine but it is likely to be similar to that found for alcohol. A UK studyestimated that the 10% heaviest consumers of heroin and cocaine in the UK accounted for30% of the drug-related crime in the country (Strategy Unit Drugs Project, 2003). Thissuggests that the ability of drug treatment to attract, retain and benefit the heaviestconsumers of drugs (such as heroin, cocaine and amphetamine) in a community is likely toresult in significant reductions in crime and may also reduce the recruitment of novice drugusers.""Conclusions:The dominant global approach to illicit drugs for many decades strongly emphasized druglaw enforcement rhetorically and financially. Consequently, scant emphasis and minimalfunding was allocated to demand reduction (in the form of drug education and drugtreatment). Also, drug education and drug treatment provided in an environment dominatedby drug law enforcement were rarely based on evidence and often emphasized theunrealistic achievement of abstinence at whatever cost. A more realistic approach began toemerge after the magnitude of the threat of HIV began to be appreciated in the 1980s.Increasing emphasis was given to harm reduction though harm reduction was often(willfully) misunderstood and virtually always grossly under-funded. In time many arguedthat harm reduction not only be applied to drugs but also to drug control measures. At theend of the first decade of the twenty first century, drug use continues to spread around theworld with reports of illicit drug use from an ever increasing number of countries. Globalproduction continues to increase. The range of different types of drugs continues to expand.Most importantly, deaths, disease, crime and corruption attributed to drugs and the adverseconsequences of drug use generally continue to grow more serious. Increasingly, there arecalls for drug policy to be re-defined as primarily a health and social problem with drugeducation, drug treatment and harm reduction funded to a level where they have a chanceto be effective."http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org... Milton Friedman said it well."If even a small fraction of the money we now spend on trying to enforce drug prohibition were devoted to treatment and drug rehabilitation, in an atmosphere of compassion not punishment, the reduction in drug usage and in the harm done to users could be dramatic." -Milton Friedman