From: bliss@sfo.com   
      
   On 05/04/2010 12:04 PM, jigo wrote:   
   > Brother Nate wrote:   
   >> VFW wrote:   
   >> [...]   
   >>> "The war on drugs does not work, period," said Dr. Julio Montaner,   
   >>> president of the International AIDS Society.   
   >>>   
   >>> "We must take an evidence-based approach to dealing with the drug   
   >>> market, because current strategies are not working and people are paying   
   >>> for ill-considered policies with their lives," Montaner said in a   
   >>> release.   
   >>   
   >> I'm in favor of taking a rational approach to the problems posed   
   >> by addiction and drug abuse, but I don't find statements like   
   >> "The war on drugs does not work, period" to be especially   
   >> meaningful - there are just too many dimensions to this issue.   
   >   
   > Possibly "the war on drugs does more harm than good" would be a better   
   > short phrase to describe the situation.   
   >   
   >   
   >> The war on drugs certainly has not created a zero-violation   
   >> environment, but that would be an unrealistic expectation.   
   >   
   >   
   > True, but the point is that it is extremely far from zero. Many illegal   
   > drugs are as easy to obtain as legal drugs   
   >   
   >   
   >> It's true that some forms of drug abuse are on the rise, but   
   >> despite what we're told about "forbidden fruits" it's clearly   
   >> self-evident that laws aren't causing people to binge drink   
   >> more. Abuse is driven by what people want, not by what   
   >> they're told not to do.   
   >   
   > True but not the point.   
   >   
   >> The spike in violence may be the worst side-effect of our   
   >> efforts to enforce these laws. Revenue from a high-stakes   
   >> trafficking business has fueled the ambitions of defacto   
   >> warlords. There may be a certain appeal to the idea of   
   >> taking away the revenue that drug lords make from   
   >> running drugs and redirecting it as sales tax and "sin"   
   >> tax on regulated trade, but implicit in the very name of   
   >> the "harm reduction" approach is the reality that drug   
   >> abuse really does cause harm.   
   >   
   > And the reality is that drug abuse would cause far less harm if they   
   > were legal.   
   >   
      
   	Drug use would cause fewer problems but drug abuse comes   
   with its own problems and pre-existing problems.  Alcohol is   
   the most common drug of abuse in the USA afaik but it can   
   be used safely by the majority of its users.   
   >   
   >> A legalized environment might result in less harm, but   
   >> I believe the fact that harm would still occur would be   
   >> taken up as a point of criticism by opponents of drug use,   
   >> and that criticism would be no less unfair or unrealistic   
   >> than blanket generalizations that the present approach   
   >> "doesn't work period".   
   >   
   > That criticism would be unfair because all the evidence (e.g., from   
   > alcohol prohibition, the pre-criminalization era, other countries)   
   > strongly indicate that legalization greatly reduces harm.   
      
   	Well what about Islamic nations where alcohol is strictly   
   prohibited?   
      
   	There are fewer problems with legalization but these   
   problems cannot vanish with legalization but a drug abuser   
   can be dealt with more effectively by health care than   
   by imprisonment.   
      
   	later   
   	bliss   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)