Forget the amount of money the government could be bringning in, if the war on drugs actually stopped people from ruining their lives, the loss would be well worth it. It doesn't though, it actually manages to increase the levels of heavy drug use. As Ralph Nader says, "It is time for a change, the system is not working."

Not to mention the amazing drug quality that would result. I recently did a report of Legalizing drugs. Its pretty much something that should be done, but the government doens't want to. Arizona and Cali. actually passed laws allowning weed for medical reasons, and Clintons crew refused to allow them to, threatening to arrest docs who prescribe it.

In the Netherlands its all legal, as well as euthanasia.

Don't get me wrong, legalizing drugs would reduce crime, having a system of rehibilitation and not jail time would decrease crime and also even help and save lives. Ok, good, we all know this one side of the arguement, and that's fine. Now understand the other side. You need to go through all the legal ramifications and studies to solve problems such as "What age for what drug?", "How much of drug X can person Y do in one day?", etc etc. All these legal limitations and studies cost money. You need to train police officer's to deal with overdoses that would result from newfound "drug freedom". Creating places to do said drugs would bring down land value, which would substantiate the whole "drugs equal ghetto (ghetto as in impoverished areas, which just so happen to contain mostly people of minority)". Now sure, there would be a large boost in the economy on paper. But who the hell really knows?
If you go ahead and legalize only pot, now you have the whole "gateway" idea, only it starts on an even higher step. Then there's the respect from other nation's; who really has any respect for the Netherlands besides being some drug mecca and a neutral country on the whole. By legalizing drugs, the US Gov't would be "giving in" to what it considers some of it's worst criminals.
Oh well, these are just ideas of mine, I haven't done the proper research or anything. Just think about it before you knee-jerk and call me a NARC. They aren't my opinions, in an apathetic way I'm fine the way things are know, if I need drugs, I can get them, then do them. Just understand the other side in this.

Your argument is as valid as mine. What is for sure is that there is going to be fierce debate on this and even more on other topics in congress. I hope that our dear representatives in Washington display mortality, intelligence, and insight while making laws that will undoubtedly effect our and our children’s lives for years to come.

Full legalization is unrealistic.

Despite that, wasting everyone's money with paramilitary anti-pot operations in Northern California is ridiculous.

Carl: you made some good points, but I have a few counterpoints. Overdoses are actually reduced when drugs are legalized, not increased. Places for using drugs would be in commercial or industrial areas most likely, it wouldn't have that much effect on land value. I'd have to assume it'd be somewhat equal to the effect a bar has, which is to say not much. The Netherlands is actually very respected, and not only in liberal circles. They have low crime, peace, prosperity, and a happy populous. Are there problems associated with legalizing drugs? Sure, but for the most part it'd be beneficial.

Good job Chad. I went into that little tirade just out of sheer boredom (also without any research) and wanted to see if anyone would come up with anything reasonable. Damn good job of a response, I'm glad at least some people know what they're talking about.

Drugs are bad you fools, when will you all realize the ridiculousness and immaturity of your ways, go straightedge and get yourself a cup of coffee instead?