I don't use drugs, and I really don't even drink much. But even though I've argued against your position, I'm not really for legalizing all drugs. In fact, I don't know what I'm for ... all I know is that I'm against the status quo. What we have been doing hasn't worked, so why not at least consider other options? One of those options happens to be legalization.
I thought this statement was pretty good.. I am open to exploring other options, and your statement above shows that.. However, that is not the stance of everyone arguing in this thread.. it seems like most are for full legalization.. Till now, everything I have discussed has been why full legalization is stupid, but that doesn't mean that I am not open to other options just like you and some others as well!
1. Give MUCH stiffer penalites for drugs. Millions arrested here compared to 400 hanged in Singapore over a 13 year period debunks the "Penalties don't dissuade behavior" line.
2. The status quo. Which obviously only costs me tax dollars and stops nothing. Druggies don't even mind doing a little time and getting 3 meals a day and some R&R.
3. Decriminalize pot in small amounts and at least free up a few of my tax dollars for something worthwhile.
4. Legalize. Hate to even think about how easy it's going to be to purchase and sell to minors then but ought to be interesting.
My choice is number 3 reluctantly because we sure are never going to go the Singapore route (thankfully). Even I'm not that hardline.
I like the options you mentioned above, and I'll comment accordingly
1. This option is always a good one, but if the judicial system doesn't systematically execute child molesters and rapist then I highly doubt that they will go after drug users and sellers in this manner, so this is really not a feasible solution that could be implemented anyway.
2. Jails are being filled up according to the reports I have read, and money is wasted on people that will eventually get replaced out in the real world, so really keeping the status Quo is not an option either!
3. If someone wants to smoke pot, do cocaine and smoke crack in the privacy of his own home then so be it.. he is doing this anyway.. However, if someone is driving under the influence of any of these drugs then they should have the book thrown at them just like drunks do.. (I just want to mention that I believe that someone who drinks 1 beer should be giving a DUI).. Basically you let all the small time dealers and users go, or give them like 7 warnings before you jail them or something like that.. However, you go after the big distributors and dealers with all the resources and money that you have saved, and you actually start putting a dent until it becomes financially prohibitive to do what they do.
4. This is not an option as far as I am concerned, or a dumb one really.. to open things up and allow people of age to go ahead and buy drugs openly is just stupid.. if we think that addiction rates are high now.. wait until your kid can send his friend to the drug store to buy him a pure line of coke! With the option of number 3 why would anyone really explore this one?
I would have no issue going with number 3 really, with the only difference being that maybe we still go after anyone that deals, and just not the users who have a certain amount for personal use.. I mean if you catch a user driving with stuff on them, but they are not high.. can't you just take them in, find out who sold them the stuff and then confiscate their stuff and let them go? Then go after the person who sold the stuff? I just think things have gotten so muddled that even the DEA doesn't know what the hell they are doing anymore.. You can easily and systematically tackle this issue, but it is so bogged down with red lines that no one wants to really because they have some pretty good paying jobs!