Actually there is a massive movement in the states right now to decriminalize offenses because their law enforcement and prison budgets have gotten out of control, not to mention every other cost associated with things like this.  Just because you stop enforcing some laws doesn't mean you decrease the effect of the law.  This is power the government has to take away people's freedom.  They shouldn't abuse it and throw people in jail for meaningless offenses.

The U.S. has 5% of the world's population.  But we have 25% of the world's prison population.  Its absurd.  We throw people in jail for driving with an invalid driver's license when that should at most be a hefty fine.  Over 30% of the cases prosecuted in Washington are for suspended driver's licenses.  Would you rather police officers and prosecutors be worrying about people breaking into homes and committing other violent crimes or using a substantial amount of their time and financial resources to worry about people with an invalid driver's license?

We shouldn't throw people in jail unless they are a clear danger to society.  Why should we give the government so much power?  Isn't that against what conservatives stand for as well?  Giving government too much power?

In economic times like these, cutting the number of police would only be bad for the employment statistics.

Yes, yes it does.

Explain why it's constitutionally viable to make drugs illegal? They were not illegal for over 100 years in this country. What changed (constitutionally speaking)?

Albert Einstein once said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. I can think of no better way to describe the WOD. It's time to try something different and more compatible with the ideals America is supposed to stand for.

/thread

The war on drugs could not be a more miserable failure.  Its easier for young people to get pot than alcohol.  If we are gauging our success rate in the war on drugs by the amount of drugs that have infiltrated this country there is only one answer.  That we have not only failed, but failed miserably.

Why do I care what is "constitutionally viable?"

As for what has changed in the past 100 years or so, I'd like to think we as a people have grown more intelligent (obviously some more than others).  At one time, stoning people who broke laws was fine. At one time, slavery was A-okay.  At one time, women being unable to vote was fine.  At one time, using harmful drugs was acceptible. We're not stuck in the past however.  We don't stone people to death.  Slavery is illegal.  Women are able to vote.  Using harmful drugs is illegal.

Of course, just like there are still some people who think women shouldn't vote and non-Caucasian people should be looked down upon, there are still some people who think harmful drugs are a good thing.

I think harmful drugs are horrible. I think a government controlling your life is worse however. Yea, taking drugs is a great way to screw up your life. It’s your life. A lot of things will kill you. Should they all be illegal? No more sky diving, driving a car, skiing, drinking, and any of a hundred other things that could kill you. I guess we just need to “more intelligent” before those become illegal as well.

And all those laws you mentioned were government preventing people’s freedoms from being taken away (a good thing). This is the opposite.

P.S. People have been equally intelligent for thousands of years. I think the biggest failing with government today, is the belief that somehow we know better than those that came before us. It’s a testament to our arrogance.

The current drug laws of the United States (and most developed nations) are entirely arbitrary and it would make sense to come up with a set of rules/guidelines that determine which drugs should be over the counter legal to everyone, drugs that should be age restricted, drugs which should require a prescription, drugs that should be illegal to sell but decriminalized to have in small ammounts, and completely illegal drugs.

At the same time, there needs to be an understanding in society that drugs with restrictions have serious risks associated with their use and we need to start eliminating lawsuits related to people knowingly taking pharmaceuticals that have well known side effects because they ended up encountering the side-effects that the drug had.

Yes.  This is my main problem, that the laws are totally arbitrary.

You want pot to be illegal?  Then outlaw alcohol and tobacco too, because they are both more harmful to society than marijuana.

You want heroin to be illegal?  I have no problem with that.  But putting marijuana in the same category with heroin and the other narcotics is just plain stupid.

These are three fundamental questions that should be asked about every drug, including the ones that are currently legal:

1) Is it physically addictive (NOT is it psychologically addictive)?  If so, how physically addictive?

2) Is it physically dangerous?  If so, how physically dangerous?

3) What is the social impact of the drug (on families, on crime, etc.)?

And one more that we don't ask enough, especially after all the recent explosions in drug cartel violence along the border:

4) Would society be better off if we did just go ahead and legalize it?