Lately, it seems the 'War on Drugs' debate has been everywhere. And to think, the volume on this discussion was turned up 10 notches by a troublesome Olympian who was photographed with his mouth to a water-pipe.

Then came the California legalization bill, news that Oregon is considering a socialization of medical marijuana and, most recently, Rep. Barney Frank saying he plans to introduce federal legislation to eliminate penalties for possessing small amounts of marijuana.

Frank, who announced his intent on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, said he plans to call it the "Make room for serious criminals act."

And even President Obama, who flippantly dismissed a question on legalizing pot as not a "good strategy" for economic recovery, was quietly encouraging Sen. Jim Webb to move forward with legislation that would form a committee to study prison reforms and retool existing drug criminalization.

At the very least, one can say Obama's position on marijuana policy has been consistent. He has never once said he supports legalization. Let's flash-back to Jan. 21, 2004 ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQr9ezr8UeA&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Frawstory%2Ecom%2Fblog%2F2009%2F03%2Fthe%2Drailroading%2Dwill%2Dbe%2Dtelevised%2F&feature=player_embedded

If his most recent statements sound like double-speak to you, get familiar with "Chicago politics." It's not 'say one thing but do another.' It's 'confuse your opponents by touching on common ground while your friends and associates work other avenues.' For drug law reform advocates, that's not such a bad thing. He's not a blunt progressive (no pun intended) and a second term is definitely on his mind, even this early in the game.

And let's not forget, Attorney General Eric Holder has said the only time a marijuana caregivers club will experience a DEA raid is if they're suspected to be in violation of state and federal law. After the announcement that random assaults on dispensaries would stop, California's medical marijuana patients breathed a sign of relief. But the news was followed by the feds smashing through a San Francisco dispensary. However, even here, the DOJ's argument was consistent: they were suspected of breaking state law, which likely means the DOJ thinks there was some back-door distribution going on.

And then, there's Congressman Ron Paul, the most kindly, grandfatherly elder statesman to ever advocate for the peoples' right to get stoned. (Or have unfettered access to medicine, depending on your purview and present bill of health.)

In spite of the recent string of high-profile victories for the legalization crowd, Paul's appearance on CNN yesterday, debating the 'War on Drugs' with former Congressman Earnest Istook, was not one of them.

After watching this, the first word out of my mouth was "railroaded." See for yourself:

This video is from CNN's Campbell Brown, broadcast Mar. 26, 2009.

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/03/the-railroading-will-be-televised/

What I want to know from you ... Was CNN's Campbell Brown fair? Did she intervene enough (or too much) when Istook continually spoke over Rep. Paul? And what's with those wonky Rand Corporation "facts"?

Furthermore, Obama seems to be playing a complex game of behind-the-scenes chess on this issue. His flippant dismissal of legalization made older conservatives feel all warm and authoritarian inside, but his mere acknowledgement of the public's growing will to see it happen may have actually amplified the discussion even further. Do you think he's changed his mind on decriminalization?

And what do you make of Rep. Paul's position that the 'War on Drugs' is unconstitutional and should be done away with? How would an all-drugs-are-legal America function?

Enlighten us.

-- Stephen C. Webster

I am for legalizing it all

Do it for the economy.

I can see pro's and con's in making pot legal, but not ALL drugs.

have you as well heard, that Obama just passed legislation, stopping immediately, the federal government policy, of raiding state dispenceries of medicinal marijuana???

it seems most applicable in caly right now, but certainly a step in regarding the wants of the people, as state of peoples, as meaningful???

this in itself, is a huge step, in believing once again, that common peoples wants and desires, and intelligence, are to be heeded as well as what the elite want and desire and deem intelligent???

peace man

I've never heard anything but rhetoric, government rhetoric at that, about why they shouldn't be. So please, someone give me a rational, well thought out reason why we shouldn't end this expense human rights violation called a drug war?

meaning to make drugs legal? I have given my thoughts on this before. I can see the pro's and con's of it. pro's are as you have stated. the con's IMO i see are...who wants to pay taxes for something they haven't had to before. not to mention the tax hikes we get....it will be back to under the table dealings. and the dealers won't want to pay taxes when they make tons of money now under the table. dealers won't want to claim that income on taxes. plus it doesn't stop people from committing crimes to support their habits (no...not all commit crimes for it, but it does happen)

not sure if this is what you are asking for....but these are my feelings on it as I see the possiblities

This is the U.S. on drugs
Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.
By David W. Fleming and James P. Gray
July 5, 2008


The United States' so-called war on drugs brings to mind the old saying that if you find yourself trapped in a deep hole, stop digging. Yet, last week, the Senate approved an aid package to combat drug trafficking in Mexico and Central America, with a record $400 million going to Mexico and $65 million to Central America.




The United States has been spending $69 billion a year worldwide for the last 40 years, for a total of $2.5 trillion, on drug prohibition -- with little to show for it. Is anyone actually benefiting from this war? Six groups come to mind.



The first group are the drug lords in nations such as Colombia, Afghanistan and Mexico, as well as those in the United States. They are making billions of dollars every year -- tax free.

The second group are the street gangs that infest many of our cities and neighborhoods, whose main source of income is the sale of illegal drugs.




Third are those people in government who are paid well to fight the first two groups. Their powers and bureaucratic fiefdoms grow larger with each tax dollar spent to fund this massive program that has been proved not to work.

Fourth are the politicians who get elected and reelected by talking tough -- not smart, just tough -- about drugs and crime. But the tougher we get in prosecuting nonviolent drug crimes, the softer we get in the prosecution of everything else because of the limited resources to fund the criminal justice system.

The fifth group are people who make money from increased crime. They include those who build prisons and those who staff them. The prison guards union is one of the strongest lobbying groups in California today, and its ranks continue to grow.

And last are the terrorist groups worldwide that are principally financed by the sale of illegal drugs.



Who are the losers in this war? Literally everyone else, especially our children.

Today, there are more drugs on our streets at cheaper prices than ever before. There are more than 1.2 million people behind bars in the U.S., and a large percentage of them for nonviolent drug usage. Under our failed drug policy, it is easier for young people to obtain illegal drugs than a six-pack of beer. Why? Because the sellers of illegal drugs don't ask kids for IDs. As soon as we outlaw a substance, we abandon our ability to regulate and control the marketing of that substance.



After we came to our senses and repealed alcohol prohibition, homicides dropped by 60% and continued to decline until World War II. Today's murder rates would likely again plummet if we ended drug prohibition.

So what is the answer? Start by removing criminal penalties for marijuana, just as we did for alcohol. If we were to do this, according to state budget figures, California alone would save more than $1 billion annually, which we now spend in a futile effort to eradicate marijuana use and to jail nonviolent users. Is it any wonder that marijuana has become the largest cash crop in California?

We could generate billions of dollars by taxing the stuff, just as we do with tobacco and alcohol.

We should also reclassify most Schedule I drugs (drugs that the federal government alleges have no medicinal value, including marijuana and heroin) as Schedule II drugs (which require a prescription), with the government regulating their production, overseeing their potency, controlling their distribution and allowing licensed professionals (physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, etc.) to prescribe them. This course of action would acknowledge that medical issues, such as drug addiction, are best left under the supervision of medical doctors instead of police officers.



The mission of the criminal justice system should always be to protect us from one another and not from ourselves. That means that drug users who drive a motor vehicle or commit other crimes while under the influence of these drugs would continue to be held criminally responsible for their actions, with strict penalties. But that said, the system should not be used to protect us from ourselves.



Ending drug prohibition, taxing and regulating drugs and spending tax dollars to treat addiction and dependency are the approaches that many of the world's industrialized countries are taking. Those approaches are ones that work.

David W. Fleming, a lawyer, is the chairman of the Los Angeles County Business Federation and immediate past chairman of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. James P. Gray is a judge of the Orange County Superior Court.

Sorry the article is from July 08 but still a good read

nothing happen in an instant, that will stand the test of time as most prudent and just???

if we just stop all illegalization, without first siezing the opportunity to teach wisdom to the youth, and not just NO, AND FEAR TACTIC'S, many will fall prey to a rush on now "legal drugs"???

if something has been off limits, and the reasoning has not been used to actually accessing a no from logical deduction, and only from a "NO", then at first, a time period would ensue as dog's off a leash, and this indeed does have an impact, if one deem the self interest of other's value and heartache and trouble as equal to self???

agreed, the illegalization create a black market demand, so therefore create a black market, that any crimminal seek out to use for it's own profit, but there are always more ramifications that effect all, not one, or some, but all considered, as a constant seeing the effect on all things, from large to small???

if the effect as a constant, as all as one is not taken into account for any solution, there will be more of the same of less than desirable created???

sure, the mob traffic in what is illegal, but to make it legal, without first accessing all the total ramifications in advance, with common sense, is to deny greater impact and reality of all, and to only base better reality on what self wish for alone???

i see that anything, that approach any subject, with the notion that self is the wisest in the world, and deem it's own individual assessment of all reality, as greater than all other's, will have many good intentions, but of they are based on just self, or some, then there is not yet total seeing of other's as equal to self, hearing all voices as having good data, and all telling but a piece, all trying with the best itself has, and each holding a piece of the whole puzzle of any solution???

it is more illogical, to believe that two eye's, be more aware and insightful and knowing best, than all other eye's, and this supreme as one thinking is all to easy to spot, as it always try to make good, but only base it most on self as the decider, of whether all other words be worthy or not worthy???

such thinking is more as a self diety, of course, loving all that agree with self, but to see the value, in what does not agree with self, be even the first steps in finding any greater wisdom, that find the ability to see thru more than two eye's alone.

the ramification in total, i have neither the inclination or energy to spell out, but they are many, and cannot be seen, if only seeing thru some eye's, but must be dug up by seeing thru all eye's, with all things seen as equal human things of immense value, in each step and breath, and this thinking is easy to see warmachine, is not yet in place within the logic and feeling you speak with???

just one ignorant sight of one reality.

I'll give it a shot on why not to end the drug war (on a border level). Quite simply, the effects they have upon the individual and the cost to society in the loss of life (the dealer violence aside) and productivity (raise your hand if you've called in to work and requested a personal day because of a hangover) by the recreational and/or habitual user. The most compelling reasons/arguements can be made by former users/addicts themselves... the toll taken upon friends, family members, and personal health. It also provides more excuses for people not taking personal responsibility for their actions (E.G. crimes committed while under the influence). The reduction of inhibitions- increasing the likelihood of risky behavior (E.G. contracting an STD). I would suggest using alchohol and tobacco (legal drugs) as the template. There are concerted efforts to restrict it's uses even further... where one can smoke and the lowering of the threshold of what is considered a DUI. It's always an "after the fact" consequence when it can be prevented by not legalizing or decriminalizing them to begin with.

I would suggest at looking at all the drug and alcohol treatment programs already... the more drugs legalized and/or decriminalized only compounds the costs for treatments and such. Just another way for government to separate you from your money (like gambling boats and the lotto). Cause the problem only to somehow miraculously have a half-assed solution to it, resulting in even more problems. The more the problems, it appears to me the more people look to government for solutions. Another piece of legislation (in legalizing/decriminalizing) that will result in further political corruption.

I wonder how the poster of this topic would feel about someone moving next door to him and setting up a meth lab.All totally legal as far as he is concerned.I wonder how he would feel if he was run over by someone high on crack,once again totally legal to smoke.

Is it any wonder we have recently heard of Mexico pushing drugs and it's gangs into American cities,kidnapping Americans,and killing cops?Anyone wonder why that is happening?

Lax drug laws and a laid back attitude towards drug use.

It would be interesting to take a major city and legalize drugs and see what happends.I wonder how many thousands of people would quit their jobs to be drug dealers.Even the 7-11's would be selling herion,crack,and cocaine.How many thousands of addicts would move there bringing their addictions,crime,and problems.How many new users would we see?

There is a reason no nation on this earth will legalize drugs.They allready know the outcome.

I can't smoke to whether I want to or not, so I'm not experienced enough to talk about the effects except what I have sen personally and read. But I still have a lot of concerns about making it legal...let alone all drugs

I am with Rose on this one. I think Marijuana is only maybe a bit more harmful than cigs so it can't be all that bad. So if they want to consider legalizing that I would not have an issue with it but the other drugs, no way.

If we could stop people from thinking that being drunk and high is a good thing here at home, we could stop the drug problem because there would be no market for it. I know I am dreaming here.

I would suggest IF they make it legal to have the same requirements as alcohol. no underage use....driving...etc. I still can't say I agree with it (because I don't know much about pot except what I have seen from people that use it and research)

I still wonder the reaction of having to add taxes to it when they haven't had to before

sorry...thought of something else (bear with me...i had to take meds)

as for prohibition which led to bootlegging etc...remember that it was legal to begin with, then taken away. Which is why the bootleggers were prosperous. Drugs weren't legal (except along time ago like with Laudanum) but not that widely used...or maybe not talked about. so with drugs being illegal for as long as we can remember....

Never mind..my mind train derailed

Do it for the sake of laissez faire. Get our money out of yet another one of our government's many bottomless money pits.

The poster would feel exactly the same way if I were run over by someone who had a perscription for Oxycontin and choose to drive to Burger King. I would feel exactly the same as I would if I lived next door to the obscenely and constitently drunk folks, who couldn't handle their booze. Yet these folks got their buzz with the full consent and acceptance of our dear loving Central Government.
Now, lets take a look at some fun drug war facts, shall we?

Annual Causes of Death in the United States
Tobacco 435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,0001
Alcohol 85,000
Microbial Agents 75,000
Toxic Agents 55,000
Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,347
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000
Suicide 30,622
Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000
Homicide 20,308
Sexual Behaviors 20,000
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600
Marijuana 0

(2000): "The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435,000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400,000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85,000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were microbial agents (75,000), toxic agents (55,000), motor vehicle crashes (43,000), incidents involving firearms (29,000), sexual behaviors (20,000), and illicit use of drugs (17,000)."
(Note: According to a correction published by the Journal on Jan. 19, 2005, "On page 1240, in Table 2, '400,000 (16.6)' deaths for 'poor diet and physical inactivity' in 2000 should be '365,000 (15.2).' A dagger symbol should be added to 'alcohol consumption' in the body of the table and a dagger footnote should be added with 'in 1990 data, deaths from alcohol-related crashes are included in alcohol consumption deaths, but not in motor vehicle deaths. In 2000 data, 16,653 deaths from alcohol-related crashes are included in both alcohol consumption and motor vehicle death categories." Source: Journal of the American Medical Association, Jan. 19, 2005, Vol. 293, No. 3, p. 298.)

Source: Mokdad, Ali H., PhD, James S. Marks, MD, MPH, Donna F. Stroup, PhD, MSc, Julie L. Gerberding, MD, MPH, "Actual Causes of Death in the United States, 2000," Journal of the American Medical Association, March 10, 2004, Vol. 291, No. 10, pp. 1238, 1241.


(2000): "Illicit drug use is associated with suicide, homicide, motor-vehicle injury, HIV infection, pneumonia, violence, mental illness, and hepatitis. An estimated 3 million individuals in the United States have serious drug problems. Several studies have reported an undercount of the number of deaths attributed to drugs by vital statistics; however, improved medical treatments have reduced mortality from many diseases associated with illicit drug use. In keeping with the report by McGinnis and Foege, we included deaths caused indirectly by illicit drug use in this category. We used attributable fractions to compute the number of deaths due to illicit drug use. Overall, we estimate that illicit drug use resulted in approximately 17000 deaths in 2000, a reduction of 3000 deaths from the 1990 report."

Source: Mokdad, Ali H., PhD, James S. Marks, MD, MPH, Donna F. Stroup, PhD, MSc, Julie L. Gerberding, MD, MPH, "Actual Causes of Death in the United States, 2000," Journal of the American Medical Association, March 10, 2004, Vol. 291, No. 10, p. 1242.


(2003): The US Centers for Disease Control reports that in 2003, there were a total of 31,484 deaths from suicide in the US.

Source: Hoyert, Donna L., PhD, Heron, Melonie P., PhD, Murphy, Sherry L., BS, Kung, Hsiang-Ching, PhD; Division of Vital Statistics, "Deaths: Final Data for 2003," National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 54, No. 13 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, April 19, 2006), p. 5, Table C.


(2003): The US Centers for Disease Control reports that in 2003, there were a total of 17,732 deaths from homicide in the US.

Source: Hoyert, Donna L., PhD, Heron, Melonie P., PhD, Murphy, Sherry L., BS, Kung, Hsiang-Ching, PhD; Division of Vital Statistics, "Deaths: Final Data for 2003," National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 54, No. 13 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, April 19, 2006), p. 5, Table C.


(2003): "In 2003, a total of 28,723 persons died of drug-induced causes in the United States (Tables 21 and 22). The category 'drug-induced causes' includes not only deaths from dependent and nondependent use of drugs (legal and illegal use), but also poisoning from medically prescribed and other drugs. It excludes unintentional injuries, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to drug use. Also excluded are newborn deaths due to mother's drug use."

Source: Hoyert, Donna L., PhD, Heron, Melonie P., PhD, Murphy, Sherry L., BS, Kung, Hsiang-Ching, PhD; Division of Vital Statistics, "Deaths: Final Data for 2003," National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 54, No. 13 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, April 19, 2006), p. 10.


(2003): "In 2003, a total of 20,687 persons died of alcohol-induced causes in the United States (Tables 23 and 24). The category 'alcohol-induced causes' includes not only deaths from dependent and nondependent use of alcohol, but also accidental poisoning by alcohol. It excludes unintentional injuries, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to alcohol use as well as deaths due to fetal alcohol syndrome."

Source: Hoyert, Donna L., PhD, Heron, Melonie P., PhD, Murphy, Sherry L., BS, Kung, Hsiang-Ching, PhD; Division of Vital Statistics, "Deaths: Final Data for 2003," National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 54, No. 13 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, April 19, 2006), p. 10.


(1996): "Each year, use of NSAIDs (Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs) accounts for an estimated 7,600 deaths and 76,000 hospitalizations in the United States." (NSAIDs include aspirin, ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, ketoprofen, and tiaprofenic acid.)

Source: Robyn Tamblyn, PhD; Laeora Berkson, MD, MHPE, FRCPC; W. Dale Jauphinee, MD, FRCPC; David Gayton, MD, PhD, FRCPC; Roland Grad, MD, MSc; Allen Huang, MD, FRCPC; Lisa Isaac, PhD; Peter McLeod, MD, FRCPC; and Linda Snell, MD, MHPE, FRCPC, "Unnecessary Prescribing of NSAIDs and the Management of NSAID-Related Gastropathy in Medical Practice," Annals of Internal Medicine (Washington, DC: American College of Physicians, 1997), September 15, 1997, 127:429-438, from the web at http://www.acponline.org/journals/annals/15sep97/nsaid.htm, last accessed Feb. 14, 2001, citing Fries, JF, "Assessing and understanding patient risk," Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology Supplement, 1992;92:21-4.


(Average 1982-1998): According to Canadian researchers, approximately 32,000 hospitalized patients (and possibly as many as 106,000) in the USA die each year because of adverse reactions to their prescribed medications.

Source: AMA, 1998), Nov. 25, 1998, Vol. 280, No. 20, from the web at http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v280n20/ffull/jlt1125-1.html, last accessed Feb. 12, 2001.


An exhaustive search of the literature finds no credible reports of deaths induced by marijuana. The US Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) records instances of drug mentions in medical examiners' reports, and though marijuana is mentioned, it is usually in combination with alcohol or other drugs. Marijuana alone has not been shown to cause an overdose death.

Source: National Academy Press, 1999), available on the web at http://www.nap.edu/html/marimed/; and US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition" (Docket #86-22), September 6, 1988, p. 57.


The Centers for Disease Control reported that in 2003, HIV disease was the 22nd leading cause of death in the US for whites, the 9th leading cause of death for blacks, and the 13th leading cause of death for Hispanics.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe we should declare all these other things illegal as well, including, but not limited to, sex, driving, booze (again, failed horribly by the way), over the counter pain meds, perscription drugs and fast food.

When you utilize prohibition you get a few things: You get a price run up of whatever the product is, you get a blackmarket for the product which creates organized crime and violence of many sorts, you get a subculture of paranoid drug users and you get escalation.

"There is a reason no nation on this earth will legalize drugs.They allready know the outcome."


Amsterdam ring a bell?

I suggest everyone go to google video and watch the documentary by Kevin Booth- American Drug War.

IMO anyway....prohibition didn't work well because alcohol was widely accepted and legal, until they did away with it all together. Drugs aren't the same way. so the people won't react the same way

alcohol = legal, illegal, legal
drugs = illegal, legal, then probably back to illegal

I don't see any dealer or user wanting to pay taxes on it or file it on their taxes to the IRS. not to mention the price increase for it. they are used to getting it illegally now anyway so they will keep doing that to avoid paying taxes

warmachine- I'm going to have to question your statistics. The claim of marijuana as a stand alone cause of death may be accurate (0); However, it would be intellectually dishonest to say it's not a possible contributing cofactor. Does marijuana contribute to inactivity and a poor diet? In some cases I would say "yes". (Facetious humor here) I don't recall ever seeing anyone getting the "munchies", eating celery sticks then doing aerobics. "Motor vehicle crashes"- Of all the fatalities involving vehicles... not one single driver had marijuana in his/her system? Impossible. The same would hold true to suicide, incidents involving firearms, and homicide (crimes committed with marijuana possibly being in the system). Not one single person contacted AIDS (or any other STD) whilst under the influence of marijuana? Could it be possible that there could be adverse reactions with other prescription medications or other legal/illegal drugs when used in conjunction with marijuana? Absolutely, there are just too many variables. I would submit that people do enough stupid things already without adding to the list another legal psychoactive depressant (marijuana) to contribute.