[Edward Watson]

Hi fellow freepers,

Thought I'd share my work in progress on this issue. I must thank all who've helped me make my arguments better and hope others will also find flaws in the article. It appears the footnotes are chopped off when I post on this forum and the table are wrecked. Oh well, hopefully, everyone gets the gist.

[Phantom Lord]

While I am a supporter of drug legalization/decriminlization I would be 100% opposed to the plan of giving free drugs to addicts or anyone else.

[AUgrad]

I believe the WOD is a colossal failure. However, I could never support the idea of giving free drugs to addicts on the government's dime.It smacks of socialism.

[dark_lord]

What, a government program for free drugs? I don't think so! If they are ever legalized and regulated, let the free market apply. No government programs for drug handouts!

[WhiteGuy]

Mr. Watson,

Well done! I couldn't agree with you more.

You've done a terrific job, and here it is for free!

Now, are you sure we couldn't squeeze in just a little free beer?

Just kidding - keep it up!

[zarf]

Yes.

[AdamSelene235]

Ok, now even the Mormons are sayings it.

But what to do with all the excess prison space and LEO's?

The end of the alcohol war brought us the BATF and NFA 34. What will the end of the Drug War bring?

[Dead Corpse]

Just because the price of the WOD's would offset the price of giving drugs to addicts does not mean that we would be right in doing so. That money should be returned to the tax payers from whom it has been taken.

Free-Drug programs are socialistic when conducted by the government. This is un-ehtical and immoral.

End the Drug War, but let the druggies get thier own damn drugs. I don't like the idea of my money financing liberal schools and Christian faith-based organisations. I sure as hell am not going to allow my tax money to buy some hop-head his next fix. Nor do I want to pay for anyone's stupidity for making piss-poor personal decisions. Let them "Darwin" themselves out of the gene pool.

[JesusIsLord]

Using pot as an example, could someone explain the difference between decriminlizing and legalizing this substance? Does the U.S. or state governments treat anything as decriminlized but not legal? If so, what?

[balrog666]

Bump for later.

[Protagoras]

Disruptor alert in effect. Lets see how long before someone discards the debate on the issue and calls names or denigrates groups? We could have a pool to see how many posts.

[Monty22]

The anti-WOD crowd makes no sense here. First, they claim to want less taxes.. But then they usually say 'TAX DRUGS!'. Hypocrisy.

Second, if you're going to legalize pot, cocaine, heroin, you better also include valium, xanax, ambien, prozac, and whatever else, all OTC.

Some people just want pot legalized, but that's also hypocritical. The status quo is simply the best balance we can have..

[Willie Green]

If it is true drug use will increase if drugs are legalized, who exactly is going to pick up the habit? Me? Not a chance. If I don’t take ‘legal’ drugs like beer, coffee or tea, what makes one think I’ll pick up newly-legalized heroin? Would my mother start taking cocaine if it’s legal? Of course not. So who exactly are these new addicts and why should we exchange all the benefits of legalization to prevent them from picking up the habit?

Well, you've vouched for yourself and your mother.
I guess you must be too young to be concerned for your children.
Your attitude will change when you grow up.

[avenir]

How does an "active conservative Mormon who doesn’t even drink coffee or tea, much less consume alcoholic beverages, cigarettes or drugs" come to be a staunch defender of drug legalization?

Seriously, I find that very strange.

Not to mention your essay, which is quite a volume of wishful thinking held forth as fact. Surely there are some facts in there, but they are overwhelmed by the naive conclusions they are forced to support (but don't).

It's hard to know where to begin. I'll pick a favorite passage:

"If the government produces and gives the drugs for free to addicts in designated facilities—

1) The drug cartels and drug dealers go out of business,
2) No more corrupted (by drugs and drug money) police and judges,
3) No more drug-addicted prostitutes – streets are nicer,
4) No more drug dealers on streets – streets are safer,
5) No more thefts, assaults and murders by drug addicts for money to buy drugs – society is much safer and nicer,
6) Tailored dosages for specific addicts - drastic reduction in drug overdose emergencies and fatalities – reduction in health care costs – 16,000 lives saved every year,
7) Significant reduction in HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, tuberculosis and STD infections – reduction in health care costs – 36,000 lives saved every year,
8) Addicts have a place to stay and sleep - considerable reduction in homelessness and its associated crimes,
9) Treatment programs available to aid addicts in quitting the habit."

I think your intentions are good, but most of these points are assumptions based on Utopian constructs. I can't imagine anyone not wanting the above to be true, but it just doesn't jibe with life as we know it on planet Earth.

"No more: drug cartels/drug dealers/drug-addicted prostitutes/corrupted police and judges/thefts, assaults, or crimes by drug addicts."

Yes, legalize drugs and all this mess goes bye-bye. Utopia indeed.

[tacticalogic]

I could go along with legalization, but only for personal use. Put microscopic plastic "taggants" in them like they do dynamite, so that whatever you buy is traceable to you. If it turns out to be unworkable, and we decide we need federal control back, then we pass an amendment for it, and quit using the "anything that might involve money" commerce clause.

[Urbane_Guerilla]

You included an argument often overlooked by those who oppose the WOD: the illegality of drugs has provided the motivation for drug dealers/addicts to embark on a reign of terror for decades now.

Robberies, burglaries and murders are committed every day in astonishing numbers, against innocent people who have nothing to do with drugs.

You will notice that NONE of the drug warriors, on FR or anywhere else, will even dare to confront the fact that they are quite willing to have innocent people suffer simply in order to prevent other people from getting high.

I have often wondered how a drug warrior would feel if his parents were tortured to death by some drug monster looking for their social security money, all because the monster has to pay $100 for an illegal substance which would not be worth a dollar if it were legal.

[Polonius]

No free drugs for addicts.

[Cultural Jihad]

Having some drugs illegal but tolerating others warps this principle of fairness and equality to all.

Another socialist 'fairness' argument for the legalization of recreational poisons. Laws against bank robbery somehow coerce would-be bank robbers, and rob them of their free will choice of whether to rob or not. Yeah, right.

[William Terrell]

Legalization would turn the "drug" market over to those competent to compete in it, private enterprise. The cost reduction and stablization of dose quality and quantity from just that will remove the need for government intervention.

The cost of drugs spawns corruption in judicial and executive agencies, the nessesity to steal to pay the price of drugs, the innocent-consuming street warfare over drug distribution territory. The closest I would let the government to the drug issues is for the state governments to regulate it under their police powers.

It is government providing "free" anything to people that is the bedrock of socialism, out of which flows most of the stupidity of policy we see now.

Surely Mormons aren't into socialism?