Lets Make Drug Use Legal in Sports

[mwfanelli]

The positive drug test for Floyd Landis and the recent "no time to get to it" grand jury investigation of Barry Bonds leads to an interesting question that has been posed before:

Why not allow athletes to use whatever performance-enhancing drugs they want to? They will do it anyway, they are not harming others, and the medical effects are their own. Is it really worth the time, money, and suspisions to play the hide-and-go-seek games that happen today?

If performance enhancers were legal, the drugs could be used out in the open, real doctors, real medical attention.

Drugs are an overwhelming reality in sports today. Why not make the reality legal?

[berrywise]

I'd rather be able to smoke the refer legally first.

[walterick]

Anyone beaten in a 'Roid Rage might take offense at that idea...

[walterick]

... as might any folks who think sport should be a competetion between people, not chemicals.

[Photo-John]

Legalize it all. We have more important things to worry about.

[walterick]

Legalize it all.

"All?" Including all other drugs?

[mwfanelli]

Anyone beaten in a 'Roid Rage might take offense at that idea...

This is the user's responsibility. Get in a steroid rage, rot in a jail for 15 years. With choice comes responsibility.

[mwfanelli]

... as might any folks who think sport should be a competetion between people, not chemicals.

Well, that is just a point of view not shared by too many people. Look how many fans Bonds has. Look how many fans the Bronco's Romanowski had. Look how popular Arnold was/is. People like to see the over-the-top performances and really don't care how they come about.

You know, there are also genetic components to all of this. Babe Ruth was remarkable while abusing himself with anti-performance drugs. Should the genetically endowed be "equalized" in the name of sports?

[walterick]

This is the user's responsibility. Get in a steroid rage, rot in a jail for 15 years. With choice comes responsibility.

What about the victim? Isn't the government's duty to protect?

[mwfanelli]

"All?" Including all other drugs?

Why not? Study after study shows that a certain percentage of the population will be addicts regardless of the laws in place. Legalize them all, tax them, accept reality. It's not government's place, nor some sports committee's place, to tell individuals how they must act. We do not need nannys!

What about the victim? Isn't the government's duty to protect?

Steroid users use steroids regardless of the law. The "War on Drugs" is a dismal failure. There would be no real difference in the number of victims or the results, just the way we handle them. Let people make their own choices and when those choices result in harm to others, pay a very steep price.

[mwfanelli]

What about the victim? Isn't the government's duty to protect?

Steroid users use steroids regardless of the law. The "War on Drugs" is a dismal failure. There would be no real difference in the number of victims or the results, just the way we handle them. Let people make their own choices and when those choices result in harm to others, pay a very steep price.

[walterick]

Well, that is just a point of view not shared by too many people.

Now, that's really news to me. I had no idea people wanted the numbers over the purity of the sport. Guess I've been out of the loop too long.

Should the genetically endowed be "equalized" in the name of sports?

No. Sport has always (until juice became available) been a competition between people, meaning their bodies (genes + personal development), their minds (determination + focus), and their spirits (perseverance + conviction) and adding chemicals to this equation changes the balance. If players are allowed to use juice openly, it no longer can be called "sport" and must be called "entertainment." Because that is what it will be reduced to.

[mwfanelli]

If players are allowed to use juice openly, it no longer can be called "sport" and must be called "entertainment." Because that is what it will be reduced to.

LOL! "Sports" has been entertainment for at least several decades now! I am talking about legalizing what already exists. Why do you think athletes juice up? Better performance brings people to the park or arena and results in larger salaries. Pro sports as "pure" died with the dinosaurs.

[walterick]

Steroid users use steroids regardless of the law. The "War on Drugs" is a dismal failure. There would be no real difference in the number of victims or the results, just the way we handle them. Let people make their own choices and when those choices result in harm to others, pay a very steep price.

Steroid users will use MORE steroids MORE often if it is made legal. The war on drugs fails because of politics and a lack of conviction.

Legalizing steroids would see an increase in violent crime, ie the users taking greater liberties in their assaults.

Your last statement is very risky. I assume you are still playing Devil's Advocate here.
"Let people make their own choices and when those choices result in harm to others, pay a very steep price."
True of murder? Rape? Genocide? Or just steroids? The laws are there to keep people protected. If drug users only hurt themselves, that would be one thing. But the financial, legal, emotional, and spiritual drain drugs place on this country make them "everyone's problem." A crackhead isn't going to just kill himself smoking crack, he's going to run out and break into your home to steal money for more crack. An alcoholic isn't just going to quietly drink herself to death, she's going to run over a 3 year old before she does that. And a steroid user isn't going to shoot until his muscles pop, he's going to hurt someone in the process.

Waiting for someone to break the law and then catch them is risky business. Prevention and education will go a long way toward minimizing drug use before they happen. An ounce of prevention here saves a pound of cure.

Interesting discussion

[walterick]

LOL! "Sports" has been entertainment for at least several decades now! I am talking about legalizing what already exists. Why do you think athletes juice up? Better performance brings people to the park or arena and results in larger salaries. Pro sports as "pure" died with the dinosaurs.

Sports has been "Sports Entertainment" for several decades, as you say. But making the bottom line be "home runs and records" removes the word "sport" from the equation and makes it showmanship, nothing else.

No one wants to have to use steroids. Anyone who loves the sport, wants to see it clean.

Pure pro sports are not dead. Just the big ones. Baseball, football, etc. There are still pro sports that are clean (though I can't honestly think of one right now Soccer?) Pure sport still lives in the backyards of homes all across America. Love for the game means a love of playing it, win or lose. Today's corporate sponsorship and sport-as-business has turned sport into a competion for dollars, not between people.

The reason steroids are illegal is we the people still want our sports to be clean. I doubt we'll ever give that up.

[walterick]

We do not need nannys!

I beg to differ This country has a higher percentage of its population incarcerated than any other country. It appears we need tougher nannies, not fewer ones. Relaxing drug laws will create more crime, more violence, and more chaos. Do you really want to live in a neighborhood full of drug addicts who just haven't stepped over the line far enough to get caught yet? Come on, now. Commonsense here my man.

Steroid users use steroids regardless of the law.

And murders murder people despite the law. So might as well make that legal too?

Your position of letting people do whatever they want and punishing them after they hurt someone is precarious. Okay to have a plan to blow up a building? As long as you don't act on it! Okay to drive drunk! Just don't hurt anyone! Okay to embezzle money, shoot at kids (as long as you miss), make threatening phone calls to your family, speed through neighborhoods... just don't hit anyone! I thought I was liberal my friend, you are taking the cake! LOL

Laws are there for YOUR protection. Waiting until after a crisis has occured to punish someone is negligence, no way around that.

[mwfanelli]

I beg to differ This country has a higher percentage of its population incarcerated than any other country. It appears we need tougher nannies, not fewer ones.

More people in jail has not fixed any problems at all! We still have the highest crime rates in the first world. Ironically, many of those people in jail are there for personal possesion of drugs. We really fixed that problem!

We differ greatly in "goverment as nanny." There is no reason in the world to believe that politicians know better than we do. In most cases, they know less and their motivations are severely questionable. Huge government creates more problems than it fixes. I don't need a government that tells me what to do with every aspect of my life.

Relaxing drug laws will create more crime, more violence, and more chaos. Do you really want to live in a neighborhood full of drug addicts who just haven't stepped over the line far enough to get caught yet? Come on, now. Commonsense here my man.

Prove this! With legal drugs, there is no more incentive to lure children into the drug underground. With legal drugs, the illegal trade almost disappears. With legal drugs, no one needs to steal to get their fix. People do not use more drugs just because they are legal. One of the most heinous legal drugs we have, nicotine, has had usage go down. Alcohol problems, another legal drug, is constant. There is NO evidence to support your statement.

This reminds me of the silly argument put forth against sex education in the high schools. The same tactic was used: more sex education, more sex. Sorry, that is just silly.

And murders murder people despite the law. So might as well make that legal too? Your position of letting people do whatever they want and punishing them after they hurt someone is precarious.

Yep, murder is illegal. Has it stopped murders? What do we do with murderers? We punish them AFTER THE FACT. We do not, except maybe under the new Bush rules, punish people for what they might do in the future.

Okay to have a plan to blow up a building? As long as you don't act on it!

Yes! Under the Constitution of this country, planning something but not acting on it is perfectly legal. I wouldn't want to start instituting "thought crimes", do you?

Okay to drive drunk! Just don't hurt anyone! Okay to embezzle money, shoot at kids (as long as you miss), make threatening phone calls to your family, speed through neighborhoods... just don't hit anyone! I thought I was liberal my friend, you are taking the cake! LOL

You prosecute ALL of these things AFTER they happen. That's the freedom of choice allowed in this country. Liberal? Ha! I am for less government, less interference. That is a true conservative. I am pretty much Libertarian.

Laws are there for YOUR protection. Waiting until after a crisis has occured to punish someone is negligence, no way around that.

No, this is the super liberal point of view. Laws are NOT there for my protection, they are there to regulate my life in a manner consistent with the views of others. The world of Orwell's '1984" was extremely well regulated. Is that what you really want? I certainly don't. That is why Bush and his Republican cronies scares me so much: his vision of big government control mimics much of what you have been saying.

"Waiting until after a crisis has occured to punish someone is negligence, no way around that."

Sounds a lot like that movie "Minority Report." Shiver...!

[Liz]

Steroid users will use MORE steroids MORE often if it is made legal. The war on drugs fails because of politics and a lack of conviction.

Legalizing steroids would see an increase in violent crime, ie the users taking greater liberties in their assaults.

Your last statement is very risky. I assume you are still playing Devil's Advocate here.
"Let people make their own choices and when those choices result in harm to others, pay a very steep price."
True of murder? Rape? Genocide? Or just steroids? The laws are there to keep people protected. If drug users only hurt themselves, that would be one thing. But the financial, legal, emotional, and spiritual drain drugs place on this country make them "everyone's problem." A crackhead isn't going to just kill himself smoking crack, he's going to run out and break into your home to steal money for more crack. An alcoholic isn't just going to quietly drink herself to death, she's going to run over a 3 year old before she does that. And a steroid user isn't going to shoot until his muscles pop, he's going to hurt someone in the process.

Waiting for someone to break the law and then catch them is risky business. Prevention and education will go a long way toward minimizing drug use before they happen. An ounce of prevention here saves a pound of cure.

Interesting discussion

Well spoken Rick.

Liz

[walterick]

Mmm.. can't wait to respond to this one Maybe later tonight!

[Photo-John]

Yes - legalize it all. Most of the people in prison in this country are there on drug or alcohol-related charges. Making the drugs legal and inexpensive will eliminate a large portion of this so-called "criminal" element. Drug legislation is mostly a matter of fear, money, and politics. Legalization and treatment is the only real solution. Everything else is either involves backdoor money deals (prison guard unions and prison contrators) or political attempts to rally middle America against "crime" that wouldn't exist if drugs were legal.

Fact: If drugs were cheap, addicts wouldn't have to steal
Fact: If drugs were legal, having them wouldn't make you a criminal
Fact: If drugs were legal, organized crime wouldn't be motivated to distribute them
Fact: If drugs were legal, we could tax them
Fact: If drugs were legal we could help more addicts
Fact: Treating an addict is cheaper than incarcerating an addict
Fact: Alcohol is one of the most addictive and dangerous mind-altering substances

[walterick]

Okay, time for fun

More people in jail has not fixed any problems at all! We still have the highest crime rates in the first world.

And relaxing laws will lower crime rates? Yes?

Ironically, many of those people in jail are there for personal possesion of drugs. We really fixed that problem!

You and PJ are both bringing up this point. To me, these are two separate issues. 1) making drugs legal, 2) throwing drug users in jail. Punishing drug users by sending them to jail is not necessarily the best approach. I don't agree with filling our jails with guys who smoke pot. Heavy fines, yes. Mandatory treatment programs, yes. Loss of priveleges like driver's licenses, yes. But jail time? That's a little odd to me. If you guys are making the point that our jails are unnecessarily full of of drug users, then I agree. But that doesn't make the case for legalizing drugs. Other punishments are more approapriate.

There is no reason in the world to believe that politicians know better than we do.

Hmm, I don't know where this comment came from. Are you assuming that all laws come from politicians? If so, you're wrong. Many laws get sponsered at the grassroots level, and many - if not most - are written with the consultation of the appropriate professionals. If you're stating that drugs are illegal because a politician randomly decided so, you are mistaken. More on that later.

I don't need a government that tells me what to do with every aspect of my life.

You're now implying that I am "for big government" which is a clever switch tactic to use here. I am not petitioning for bigger government. Have never implied that I am so. I am just for common sense. Drugs are bad = common sense. Your startle response to government "controlling every aspect of your life" is quite a telling reaction. You're obviously sensitive to your government impending on your rights. Well, I tell you this; your right to life supercedes your neighbor's right to get drunk and tear through a school zone. That should also be common sense. The laws set up here are to protect you from other citizens threatening your rights to life and safety. If that means you can't fire rifles at old people or shoot heroin when you want then so be it. If you feel "restricted" by these laws I suggest you take another look at what those laws are doing for you!

Prove this! With legal drugs, there is no more incentive to lure children into the drug underground. With legal drugs, the illegal trade almost disappears. With legal drugs, no one needs to steal to get their fix. People do not use more drugs just because they are legal.

Prove this!
"With legal drugs, there is no more incentive to lure children into the drug underground."
True. Because they can walk to the Walgreens and load up on crack and meth themselves. Great point!
"With legal drugs, no one needs to steal to get their fix."
Right. Because heroin junkies are so good with money management. I'm sure they'll set aside an allowance out of every paycheck for opium and stick to it! I would!

[quote]This reminds me of the silly argument put forth against sex education in the high schools. The same tactic was used: more sex education, more sex. Sorry, that is just silly.[/qoute]

I couldn't agree more. Why you're bringing sex ed into this I don't know?...

Oh, right. Because I was saying that drug education would help keep people from using them. Good point then.

Yep, murder is illegal. Has it stopped murders? What do we do with murderers? We punish them AFTER THE FACT.

So... let me guess... under your laws, making murder legal wouldn't increase muder rates, right? Right...

Yes! Under the Constitution of this country, planning something but not acting on it is perfectly legal. I wouldn't want to start instituting "thought crimes", do you?

This is my favorite part of your post, and I almost started with it.

Michael, I'm glad you brought this up. Because just this afternoon, I was talking to my neighbor. He started telling me about this plan to bomb a government building in Washington DC. He went on and on about how he had all the bombs, all the materials, all the blueprints, had the whole thing worked out. When I called him on it, he took me down into his basement and showed me the works. Guns, bombs, maps of the building, he had everything! So I thought, god, this guy is actually going to do this! So I was going inside to call the police, when I happened to stop and check pr.com. Good thing I did! Because I read your post that said "Under the Constitution of this country, planning something but not acting on it is perfectly legal." And it stopped me in my tracks. Boy, I'm sure glad I didn't make that call. Think of all the lives I could have saved! Thanks, Mike, for setting me straight on that one!

"Under the Constitution of this country, planning something but not acting on it is perfectly legal"
Under your rules, the government would have had no responsibility to stop 911 if they knew about it ahead of time. (which they did)
Under your rules, a police offer has no obligation to stop a man with a gun from shooting someone, even if the cop is standing next to him and has 15 minutes to react.
Under your rules, I am not required to report child abuse when someone confesses they are about to do it.
Under your rules, chaos reigns supreme, and anarchy reigns right behind it. And all in the name of "protecting your rights!" That's not a world I want to live in. Take away my right to shoot heroin. I want my right to life to be protected.

I am for less government, less interference.

Ditto that. The fewer laws the better. But when you're running a nursery, rules are a neccessity.

Laws are NOT there for my protection, they are there to regulate my life in a manner consistent with the views of others.

This sounds like that paranoid, "don't take away my freedom!" attitude I have heard before. Who is it you think it controlling you? Whose rules do you imagine yourself to be subject to?

This is - the last time I checked - a democracy, which means that you put into place the people who are governing you. Whoever that evil man is who's controlling you, you're the one who gave him the power to do so. That's the beauty of democracy, you have the power!

That is why Bush and his Republican cronies scares me so much: his vision of big government control mimics much of what you have been saying.

Again, barking up the wrong tree here. I am not for big government. Just common sense. When you're dealing with people who can't self-regulate (like CEO's and drug users) you need laws in place to guide them. Once the people have matured to the point where they can regulate their own behavior - without being destructive or doing harm to themselves or others - then there is no more need for laws. ie, your panacea

"Waiting until after a crisis has occured to punish someone is negligence, no way around that." Sounds a lot like that movie "Minority Report." Shiver...!

Haven't seen it. Are you suggesting that you are not negligent for stopping harm from happening when you could have? That sounds sad to me.

More on drugs in my response to PJ's post.

[walterick]

Oh, sheesh. Not you too!

"Fact: If drugs were cheap, addicts wouldn't have to steal"
Addicts are notoriously bad with money. Easier access = more addictions. More addictions = more demand. The cost gets driven back up. And besides, folks who don't have a job because all they do is hang out at the Kmart and smoke crack all day are going to steal your money to buy more. Stealing is easier than working. Problem not solved.

"Fact: If drugs were legal, having them wouldn't make you a criminal"
Okay, that makes sense.

"Fact: If drugs were legal, organized crime wouldn't be motivated to distribute them"
Okay...

"Fact: If drugs were legal, we could tax them"
Balance the cost of jailing all the users who commit violent crimes because they're high, factor in the burden placed on the healthcare system from all the people seeking treatment for drug addiction and drug-related health problems, factor in the sky rocketing cost of health insurance for drug users, factor in the number of work-hours lost because everyone's hooked on coke, and factor in the money lost from fining drug users, and your drug tax is losing us money in comparison.

"Fact: If drugs were legal we could help more addicts"
Maybe. But there would be more addicts to help. Again, the burden placed on the helping professions would be enormous. Costs would skyrocket. Waiting lists would go up. Treatment would come at a premium. People in my field could get rich. But that's not what I want. I don't want a society full of sick pople. I want a society full of healthy, productive people. I would sacrifice my wealth for that.

"Fact: Treating an addict is cheaper than incarcerating an addict"
See my reply to Michael. I don't agree with incarcerating drug users, just fining the hell out of them. So this point can be implemented now.

"Fact: Alcohol is one of the most addictive and dangerous mind-altering substances"
Yes, and so it should be made illegal, along with nicotine, for the same reasons meth, pot, and heroin are. It's destructive.

What scares me the most here guys is that you guys seem to have no idea what drugs to do to people, families, and society. You're saying to me that drug use would not increase if the government made it legal. This argument I don't understand. More people will try it because now it's okay. Because drugs are addictive, the more people try, the more will get hooked. The more people get hooked, the more problems we have as a society. Already-strained family budgets will get burned by new drug addictions.

Once you are addicted to something, you are addicted forever. Alcoholics wake up every morning wanting a drink every day. Every day. They have to fight their addiction every day of their life. And that's just alcohol. Opium is the most addictive substance on the planet. Once you are addicted to it - which doesn't take long - your body requires it to function every day. Do you hear that? You cannot function without opium once you are addicted to it. Are you going to tell me costs are going to come down? They better! Because the average American family cannot afford a heroine addiction for all of its members. And that's just the financial aspect. You could write a book on the health effects of opium, alcohol, nicotine, crack, and marijuana. Drugs make you sick. I don't like being sick, and I don't think other people like being sick either.

Also, because drugs are readily available, they will start showing up at high school and middle school parties. I don't want to see the next generation of kids get addicted to meth by the time they're 13. That's already happening. And it's not even available at the grocery store yet. At the very least, we owe it to our kids to keep this CRAP out of their hands!

The damage that drugs do to lives in insurmountable. Familes ruined, lives waisted, minds destroyed. Drugs in no way contribute to a better society. That includes both alcohol and nicotine. Until you're heard a few stories about alcoholic fathers beating their daughters every night, until you've seen crack babies born into incubators, until you've seen the listlessness, the dependency, the lack of motivation that something as begine as marijuana causes, you can't know why drugs should stay illegal. I don't care how much money this country spends on the war on drugs. It's not enough. This is not about economics, it's about people's lives and our government setting a standard for what is right and what is wrong. How are parents ever going to be able to sit their kids down and tell them that smoking dope is wrong, when their government has just told them it's okay? That's a bad idea, all the way around. The answer to America's drug problem is not to start selling it at Kmart. It's about love, and education and prevention, and cutting the political ties that prevent the drug trafficing from stopping completely.

That's my rant for the night, hope I made some sense. Good night

[JSPhoto]

Yes - legalize it all. Most of the people in prison in this country are there on drug or alcohol-related charges. Making the drugs legal and inexpensive will eliminate a large portion of this so-called "criminal" element. Drug legislation is mostly a matter of fear, money, and politics. Legalization and treatment is the only real solution. Everything else is either involves backdoor money deals (prison guard unions and prison contrators) or political attempts to rally middle America against "crime" that wouldn't exist if drugs were legal.

***** Actually crime would rise because of more users with legalized drugs***

Fact: If drugs were cheap, addicts wouldn't have to steal
*** but with more users there is more demand, therefore prices would rise instead of of go down..... Supply & demand ****

Fact: If drugs were legal, having them wouldn't make you a criminal
**** at least not until you operate a vehicle under the influence****

Fact: If drugs were legal, organized crime wouldn't be motivated to distribute them
***No, they would distribute more child porn instead....at least till the demand goes up and prices skyrocket, then it's back to dealing drugs***

Fact: If drugs were legal, we could tax them
*** 5000% tax, to help pay for all the fried brains and birth defects caused by drugs***

Fact: If drugs were legal we could help more addicts
*** yeah, keep em stoned

Fact: Treating an addict is cheaper than incarcerating an addict
*** thats a falicy, but then so are the costs claimed to jail people - inmates have more rights than the working stiff, and thats BS. Inmates shouldn't have TV...etc... many prisoners are there because they LIKE IT, no bills, 3 meals a day, free health care. Put me in charge of prisons and there wouldn't be any repeat offenders! Bring back hard labor and no priveledges what so ever, oh, and crappy food.....they won't want to come back! Prisoners have it too damn easy in this country!

Fact: Alcohol is one of the most addictive and dangerous mind-altering substances
*** so is cafine....you gonna outlaw Coke & coffee too?

Legalizing drugs would only create more havoc, more crime and more needless suffering. The quickest way to end the problem is a mandatory death sentence for anyone dealing drugs......
You ever treat anyone who took designer drugs? I did when I drove ambulance, way too often. At one point we had 6 deaths in one week because of some designer drug, the youngest was a 12 year old girl, one who should have known better as her younger brother was born with birth defects from their mothers drug abuse. Legalizing drugs would push the countries already broken healthcare system to the point where no one but the filthy rich could afford to go to the hospital, and medicare and medicaid would end because they'd be broke (financially) within 5 years.
And how would you like to work in a factory with a guy who's high all the time and runs you over with the forklift?
I know of one case where a large union refuses to drug test their members, even after it was known that these people were high and their actions cause serious injury or death on the job. This guy is still working while one is dead and another missed 1 1/2 years of work due to their injuries. The guy who was high didn't miss a single day of work due to the union. Following recent layoffs he still has his job, while other workers who have clean safety records were laid off.

Go ahead, legalize drugs and see how much worse things get, they certainly won't get better.

JS

[Asylum Steve]

More people will try it because now it's okay. Because drugs are addictive, the more people try, the more will get hooked. The more people get hooked, the more problems we have as a society. Already-strained family budgets will get burned by new drug addictions....

While I don't think I have the energy to get mixed up in this debate, I wanted to say I think this comment by Rick is the most poignant point I've read yet in this thread. It is also the monkey wrench that would get thrown into any "make drugs legal" argument.

If you don't think criminal penalties are a major deterrent to people trying drugs for the first time, or others deciding to go back to using them or using them more often then they do, then you're not living in the real world.

I've lived my life in cities and suburbs and rural areas, and it's become obvious to me over the years that many many people have decided NOT try drugs or use them to a greater degree for the sole reason of being afraid of getting in trouble with the law.

This also includes the very powerful peer pressure of being associated with the criminal aspect of breaking the law.

I agree with Rick. IMO, the amount of people (mostly young btw) who would feel completely free to try and experiment more with drugs were they legal would increase dramatically.

And as he rightly points out, once they're using, the addiction takes over...

[mwfanelli]

Photo-John, you are starting to sound like a Libertarian! Exactly what we need, less government not more.

Some random thoughts...

Legalizing drugs would only create more havoc, more crime and more needless suffering. The quickest way to end the problem is a mandatory death sentence for anyone dealing drugs......

You have no proof of that. Prohibition didn't reduce crime, it moved alcohol use underground and into the hands of organized criminal gangs, just like drugs are today. Nicotine is more addictive than cocaine and causes almost 5 times the deaths of all illegal drugs and drug activities combined. Why is it legal while pot is not?

At one point we had 6 deaths in one week because of some designer drug, the youngest was a 12 year old girl, one who should have known better as her younger brother was born with birth defects from their mothers drug abuse.

So it appears that the laws against the use of drugs don't work! Not much of a surprise to me.

Easier access = more addictions. More addictions = more demand.

There is NO proof of this. Repeating something numerous times doesn't change the facts.

Balance the cost of jailing all the users who commit violent crimes because they're high, factor in the burden placed on the healthcare system from all the people seeking treatment for drug addiction and drug-related health problems, factor in the sky rocketing cost of health insurance for drug users, factor in the number of work-hours lost because everyone's hooked on coke, and factor in the money lost from fining drug users, and your drug tax is losing us money in comparison.

We pay all these costs now! Being illegal does not stop the use of illegal drugs. By the way, the users of drugs such as pot, cocaine, etc. hardly ever go out on wild sprees. That's left to the drunks using LEGAL alcohol.

"Fact: Alcohol is one of the most addictive and dangerous mind-altering substances"
Yes, and so it should be made illegal, along with nicotine, for the same reasons meth, pot, and heroin are. It's destructive.

OK, lets ban everything that is destructive. Fat people or excessively skinny people, off to jail! People who participate in dangerous sports, off to jail! Religion has caused more death and destruction than any force known to mankind, religious people off to jail! Who determines what is classified as destructive? You? Me? Some cleric in Iran? If I want to destroy my self, it is MY LIFE, not yours. You are not my legal guardian!

You're saying to me that drug use would not increase if the government made it legal. This argument I don't understand.

I don't understand how you can keep stating something that has not never been proven throughout history.

Are you assuming that all laws come from politicians?

In this country, yes. Others may sponsor them, such as the Moral Majority, Mothers Against Living, etc. but lawmakers are the only people who can pass laws.

I am not petitioning for bigger government. Have never implied that I am so. I am just for common sense. Drugs are bad = common sense.

Don't you see, that is big government! YOU are making teh connection between "drugs bad" and "common sense." YOU want government to enshrine and enforce your opinion into law "for everyone's good." You are not my protector or legal guardian! You run your life your way, I'll run mine my way. We do not need big government to enforce your opinions!

Under your rules, the government would have had no responsibility to stop 911 if they knew about it ahead of time. (which they did)
Under your rules, a police offer has no obligation to stop a man with a gun from shooting someone, even if the cop is standing next to him and has 15 minutes to react.
Under your rules, I am not required to report child abuse when someone confesses they are about to do it.

Conspiracy to commit a felony is already illegal. No, the government did not have any right to stop these guys from learning to fly, for example. When they chose to CARRY OUT THE ACT, it became illegal.

A man pointing a gun at another person is committing an act of felony. A person carrying a gun is not. Should cops have the right to shoot someone dead just because they **might** have a gun or should they wait until the threat is made. Ask a police officer the answer to that one.

Reporting child abuse is reporting an act that you feel has already occurred. That is after the fact as required by the Constitution.

Take away my right to shoot heroin. I want my right to life to be protected.

I debated how to reply to this. You want the government to look after your best interests because you feel incapable of running your own life. Without intendning to be insulting, this is what a dictatorship is all about. Tell me what to do, what is right, what is wrong and I will follow. That scares me much more than anything else I've seen posted in this thread.