[Jorge]

Prohibition, a gangster's best friend.

Laws against stealing, a bankrobber's best friend.
When it comes to cocaine, legalization of course would be a disaster.

[Zon]

per loin: Prohibition, a gangster's best friend.

Laws against stealing, a bankrobber's best friend.

I can't believe you actually make that "argument". Laws against robbing banks does not cause or give incentive to a person to rob the bank. Prohibition laws that artificially inflate the price of the prohibited object is what causes or gives incentive to a person to sell the prohibited item in order to gain artificially inflated profits. Next time, before posting...

Think First!

[philman_36]

Jorge Salcedo Cabrera, the main IT whiz who set up the Santacruz computer, eventually became an informant against cartel bosses. The DEA declined to comment on Salcedo. But according to several intelligence officials, he is now living in America at taxpayer expense, under the witness protection program.
Is that you George? How's the digs and eats?

What a waste! Black market...insane profits.
Legal...$1.95. Illegal...$50.00.
Whole lot of "brain power" being wasted somewhere.

[FITZ]

I'm not sure legalization would make all that much difference. Alcohol use didn't end with Prohibition but it didn't end with legalization either. Probably more people drink when it's legal and more money is spent on alcohol by more people, prohibition probably stops some people from using, but then it can't be taxed.

[Red Jones]

amen to that friend, people who favor legalizing cocaine don't have friends or relatives who've become cocaine addicts.

[WyldKard]

Laws against stealing, a bankrobber's best friend.

Strawman, strawman, straw.....man.

Bankrobbers do not profit from the actual laws prohibiting the robbing of banks. They are not encouraged to rob banks by the very fact of the act being illegal. Bank robbery (theft), murder, rape, kidnapping, etc etc, are all common in that they are one person initiating force against another person to violate their basic Constitutional rights.

Drug Lords, on the other hand, profit from laws making drugs illegal. Drug illegality ENCOURAGES people to sell illegal drugs. It creates a black market that they can profit from. They don't have to answer to Government oversight, don't have to submit to quality controls, or guarentee a safe product, and best of all, there's nothing holding them back from killing their competition outright. But the actual act of one person buying a gram of coke and snorting it up doesn't involve the initiation of force, where one person tries to violate the others Constitutional rights. It is nothing more than a mere economic exchange, supply and demand.

Those who wish to use the Government to control economic structures along with day to day morality are usually known as Socialists. Are you sure you are REALLY a *recovering* Democrat? If it quacks like a duck...

As for all the POTENTIAL problems you mentioned with coke use: These are ALL health problems. Everything you've said in #26 is a problem with alcohol as well, a perfectly legal substance. In fact, booze, prescription drugs and tobacco cause FAR FAR FAR more sociatal damage than any illegal drug ever could.

While there is certainly no reason not to immediately legalize marijuana, these "rare white powders" are a nastier lot, I'll grant you that. But I think anyone who's ever seen Less Than Zero or Trainspotting knowns that heroin and coke are not fun drugs that lead to long term success in life.

If you really cared about the Constitution, and what is being done to destroy it, you'd wake up and realize what a corrupt sham the War on (some) Drugs really is.