Sorry but i do agree with Life on this one I really do think you would be hard pressed to find even a family in Canada that doesn't have at least one, two or a "few regular drug users in it" But again "Drugs" is a broad word, that can cover alot of things. you can find drugs anywhere.
rdubnpk Drugs aren't available everywhere? Time Magazine story from June 2001 cites two people with the last name of Stolzfus, no relation, arrested for dealing cocaine and methamphetamines at town dances. Both men were Amish and the town dances were in the Amish area of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.
To clarify, by "family" I don't mean necessarily one household (Mom, Dad, 2 kids.. although there is a good chance one of the kids might be into something if they are teens) I mean more like extended families. And yes "drugs" is a broad term.. alcohol is certainly a mind altering drug, but of' course it's legal (for the moment)... so some might not think of it as a "drug". Another trend among some of the older crowd is the abuse of prescription drugs... whereby they will go "doctor shopping" to get multiple prescriptions and abuse them.. and while technically that use might not be illegal.. its still drug use in my book... the only difference is they got them at pharmacies instead of the guy on the corner. (and you'll note its a lot safer to do that than getting drugs of unknown quality from seedy characters in dark alleys) There is also the issue of over medication of children these days (ref: Prozac Nation) that IMO inclines them to seek out mind altering drugs as they get older, as they've been conditioned from a very young age that drug/medication use to "make them feel good" is acceptable and normal, and that not feeling good all the time is something unnatural. I don't encourage drug abuse (of any kind), but I don't see the current US policy as beneficial or sustainable, in fact I see it as extremely disruptive and damaging to society. It's my opinion that the levels of drug use would not increase notably if they were made legal. People will still be aware, if not more so, of the negative effects. Decriminalization will drastically cut violence and other crime associated with the drug trade, free up much needed resources, stop the needless incarceration of perfectly decent people who simply prefer to get their "buzz" from something other than alcohol, and allow for more open access to help for those that want it. I too balked at the idea of legalization not so many years ago, but as I've grown more aware of the deeper implications and realities of the current policy I've begun to feel that the best solution for everyone is controlled legalization and regulation. Anyone who thinks that the "war on drugs" will rid them from the streets is living in a dream world IMHO.. we can't even keep them out of prisons... so to think that they will ever just go away is crazy... and in the mean time far more lives are lost and destroyed in the "war" than the drugs could ever hope to claim. So... that's my opinion on the issue and while I certainly respect those who hold opposing views, as was said, it's something that we simply may never agree on.
Anyone who thinks that the war on anything will solve that particular problem is definitely in a dream world. Drugs will never be eliminated but it can be controled to a point. Crime will never be eliminated but we can't give up on that. poverty ignorance racisim disease famine the list goes on. There are a ton of things that we will never be able to wipe out but giving up is just not an option. That's the way I see drugs. There is no benefit from legalizing it. The tax dollars gained will pale in comparison to the cost of addiction centers, medical facilities, etc that will get paid for by tax dollars. Free health care in Canada has been feeling the effects of smokers for decades. Like it or not your tax dollars will foot the bill for the addicts that grow out of legalizing drugs.
But what about the cost of not legalising it, the cost of patrolling the seas for runners, the cost of drug related crime and drug related illnesses ... surely by making drugs legal, you control, you license, you legislate, and you regulate, by making drugs legal, you make them unattractive to alot of users and bring them out from the underground, i know for sure that people get a buzz just because of the risks involved;
I'm going to wade in on the side of at least SOME legalization on this issue. I only speak from 26 years in the US Coast Guard when I say that when the Coast Guard would make a multi ton bust, (pot or coke it didn't matter), it never seemed to increase the street price nor decrease the supply. As far as alcohol goes, after the 27th amendment to the US Constitution was passed in 1971, many states lowered their drinking age to 18, although several already had a lower age than 21 before (Idaho and South Dakota come to mind). There was then either a spike in 18 - 21 year olds having accidents, or not, according to whose statistics you wanted to believe. Anyway, MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) pitched such a big fit that the US government threatened ALL the states that allowed legal drinking for those under 21 with taking away their highway funds if they didn't raise the age to 21 again and they all caved. Of course the 18 - 21 year olds still get their older buddies to buy their boose just like before.
If the readers will go back to page one, they will find a lengthy and thoughtfully written post by Steve in which he expresses the anguish caused by large scale immigration to those of the then dominant culture. Large scale immigration will, without a doubt, shift the existing culture even if it doesn't supplant it. But, for many developed nations, the alternative is equally unpalatable. One of the ironies of development is that it results in a decline in the birth rate. Over time, that factor alone will destroy an economy, unless immigration reverses the trend to a smaller, and rapidly aging population.
