Legalize it!

Is there really any reason to not legalize drugs?

>Billions in tax revenue
>Stop dindu gang income and social influence
>Stop giving billions of dollars to shitskin countries that put heads on pikes.

Other urls found in this thread:

edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/
youtube.com/watch?v=sbQFNe3pkss
youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg
youtube.com/watch?v=wJUXLqNHCaI
aic.gov.au/publications/current series/tandi/421-440/tandi439.html
youtube.com/watch?v=lAWAndggiOc
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasma_gondii
youtube.com/watch?v=Cg2ZQDXzJr0
dosemakespoison.blogspot.com/
youtube.com/c/thedrugclassroom/videos
psychonautwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
drugs.tripsit.me/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

In a sense, it makes sense. But at the same time, drugs are what destroy countries. If you want to make a country weaker, you release drugs.

wtf i hate trump now #imwithher

I hope to god he wins and makes drugs legal. It disgusts me that people have their lives ruined with ridiculous sentences just because they want to take drugs. It shouldn't be the government's business.
I mean come on, Alcohol is legal. Cigarettes are legal. The only people who support drug prohibition are fucking sheep.

>The only people who support drug prohibition are fucking sheep.

And niggers.
The silly War on Drugs was started with Nixon, and heavily pushed by black preachers and congressmen from the early 70s to the early 90s.

Niggers are their own worst enemy.

I approve of this.

OMG if Trump is pro decriminalisation then he'll surely win!

Capcha : Avenue Senpai!

Source on OP pic?

This is really how you bring law and order to the land. He should legalize recreational drugs after building the wall. It would be a carrot and stick way to approach his law and order stance and vitalize the economy. Businesses would flourish, cartels would lose bank, and it cuts reckless government spending/oppression.

>. He should legalize recreational drugs after building the wall.

Silly faggot, no one would go for that.

>dealers lose money
>addicts are forced to be responsible while high
>I wuz on heroin when I got preggers with a nigger sprog

No one wants that shit.

Niggers and hippies both depend on the government to wipe their asses.

If you wanna get high, lock your doors, get high, and fuck off.

No one cares. No one.

>I wanna act like a cunt in public

That's the source of all your troubles.

>No one cares. No one.
All the innocent people in jail for simple possession say otherwise

1972. March 22. Nixon’s “Shafer” commission, made up largely of CONSERVATIVE WHITE elected officials, RECOMMENDS LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA. “Neither the marijuana user nor the drug itself can be said to constitute a danger to public safety,” writes co-author Gov. Raymond Shafer, a Republican from Pennsylvania. THE MEASURE RECEIVES NO SUPPORT FROM BLACK LAWMAKERS IN CONGRESS.

1972. August 10. Jet magazine publishes a cover story describing drugs as a form of “Slavery.”

1973. January. New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, a longtime member of the NAACP with close ties to the black community, rolls out drug laws that would set a new standard for tough sentences, even for low-level non-violent drug offenders.
He is joined at the podium by prominent BLACK LEADERS from New York City who support the measure and URGE ROCKEFELLER TO ADOPT EVEN MORE STRINGENT PENALTIES INCLUDING THE DEATH PENALTY for “pushers.”

1973. May 8. Governor Rockefeller signs laws setting minimum prison sentences of 15 years to life for possessing even small amounts of illegal narcotics, including marijuana, heroin and cocaine.

1977. August 2nd. President Jimmy Carter proposes easing Federal marijuana laws. “I support legislation amending Federal law to eliminate all Federal criminal penalties for the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana.”
THE MEASURE FAILS TO FIND SUPPORT IN DEMOCRATICALLY CONTROLLED CONGRESS.

1982. Conservative Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond and Democratic Sen. JOE BIDEN — both members of the House Judiciary Committee — partner on a new anti-crime bill penned initially by Biden’s staff.
“I told him and I told my Democratic colleagues, ‘I’ll make a deal. If you keep your right-wing guys from killing this bill, I’ll keep the liberals off the bill,” BIDEN said.

1986. October. MAJOR FEDERAL DRUG WAR LEGISLATION PASSES. Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 passes Congress, enacting far tougher Federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drug offenders, including those caught with marijuana. Establishes a 100-to-1 disparity in punishments for crack cocaine compared with powder form of drug.
The measure is supported by the Congressional Black Caucus, THOUGH SOME MEMBERS WANT EVEN HARSHER PENALTIES FOR DRUG CRIMES. Sixteen of nineteen African American members of the House — including Texas Rep. Mickey Leland and California Rep. Ron Dellums — co-sponsor
the bill.

1988. May 17. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) publishes an op-ed in the New York Times titled “Legalize Drugs? Not on your life.” He chastises President Reagan for not doing enough to battle illegal narcotics and calls crack “the worst drug epidemic in our history.”

1989. March. Ebony magazine publishes an article describing Rep. Rangel as “The Front-Line General In the War On Drugs.” Rangel talks about the “cancerous epidemic” of drugs hitting black communities in America.
Rangel chastises the administration of President George H.W. Bush for not doing enough to stop drugs.

Most of the people who are voting against legal pot are white soccer moms shouting "MUH CHILDREN" not blacks

>Most of the people who are voting against legal pot are white soccer moms shouting "MUH CHILDREN" not blacks

Yeah.
You keep believing that. Meanwhile, in the real world...

1991. Rep. Charles Rangel insists in a televised debate that the drug war should continue in a debate with CONSERVATIVE William F. Buckley Jr., WHO WANTS DRUGS LEGALIZED.
“What do you want to do with the [800,000] people that you convict?” Buckley asks. “Do you want to torture them to death?” He argues that the drug war is leading to 800 deaths per day.
Rangel goes on to insist “I still believe that [laws] should be there” and argues against legalization. He argues that someone “like Colin Powell” should be placed in charge of the effort.

1994. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act passes Democratically-controlled Congress with overwhelming margins based on Democratic support, with significant Republican opposition.
Major backers include Senate Judiciary chairman JOE BIDEN and New York Senator CHARLES SCHUMER. Measure is supported by the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives.
Establishes “three strikes and you’re out” sentencing rules. Expands death penalty to include drug trafficking crimes.

LET THE WHINING BEGIN!!

1997. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) elected chair of Congressional Black Caucus.
“Mandatory minimum sentences – especially those related to drug possession – and laws that impose more severe penalties for crack cocaine than powder cocaine have resulted in the incarceration of a disproportionate amount of African Americans.”

You think if they knew how shit everything would end up they would still have supported all those measures?

I can hardly say so much for Nixon, he clearly seems to have had some kind of malicious intent with starting the war on drugs.

Even granting that they fucked themselves with this one surely you don't want to some huge portion of your taxes going towards locking up some 24 year old drug dealer in Little Rock whose just going to be made more prone to re offending and committing crimes that actually harm others once he comes out.

>You think if they knew how shit everything would end up they would still have supported all those measures?

Yes.

Niggers don't think farther than their next fix, or meal, or cumdumpster.

They didn't evolve.

They never really needed to. The best way to pass on your genes in Africa was to impregnate as many different women as possible, as often as possible. That meant: no long term investment, no families, no invention, just eating and fucking.

All that led to a matriarchal society. Women aren't particularly curious about anything; for fuckssakes, midwives were common in Europe for hundreds of years, yet it took a man to finally invent a speculum.

Lmfao pretty much all of them are against it right now what are you talking about. If they were to have a modern day perspective on it back then they clearly wouldn't have supported it.

>Is there really any reason to not legalize drugs?
Yes. Degenerate behaviour should not be condoned.

It hurts some stupid people's feelings, and it would take revenue away from the prison industry. It would probably also reduce gang violence, leading to fewer police interactions which result in minorities getting shot so race baiters wouldn't have so many excuses to start riots.

The Prison Industry, race baiting media, and some extraordinarily stupid authoritarians who hate freedom and also money would all suffer from legal drugs while sane people who don't like gang violence, mass imprisonment, and who do like a shit-ton more money and business would all benefit from legalization.

Don't see anyone saying this about alcohol or cigarettes.
Don't see anyone saying this about people who masturbate with their own shit either.

>Don't see anyone saying this about alcohol or cigarettes.
Many people on Cred Forums say this all the time. Including myself.

>Don't see anyone saying this about people who masturbate with their own shit either.
As above. Such people should be killed.

>that stuff is bad too so that somehow makes my bad thing less bad
Stop.

As a drug user I agree. Was just thinking about this. I don't care if drugs are legalized or not cuz they're so easy to get online. There's not going to be a mass epidemic if they're regulated like alcohol. The worthless degernates will still find the cheapest shittiest drugs and the classy addicts like myself will use more sophisticated substances in a higher class setting for socialization.

He's right. The distinction is taking money away from the Mexicans. Except I get mine from Europe so who fucking cares.

>opinions opinions opinions no logic no logic opinions that's bad it's bad it's immoral no logic opinions opinions
And people like you need to be kept out of positions of power. We need logicians, not emotional soccer moms.

>drug user talking about logic
There is no logic in legalising substances that weaken society. In order for our race to advance, we need a healthy, intelligent, and strong people.

But dude weed lmao instead, amirite?

>weaken society
Eliminating drug cartels and allowing us to have ridiculous amounts of tax revenue is not weakening our society.
>we need a healthy, intelligent, and strong people
You're right, so not people like you.

But drugs still make their way into the country but now, instead of helping citizens get off the stuff, we lock them up.
In the process, we hamstring large swaths of our population. Black People would probably be way more productive if, at the very worst, they were still smoking reefer after work or during breaks.
Now they're so mired in a toxic culture that lacks valuing any kind of restraint or resistance to their id that they can't help but do what comes as first, base instinct.
Those that survive that culture end up pitying their brothers since they literally don't know any better because their culture is so segmented.
I'm going to school in Hartford and to give you a sense of it, nearly all the housing near my campus lacks internet of any kind and barely has TV or radio.
This was more because preachers are either Holy Rollers or vindictive idiots.
The Holy Rollers wanted more flock giving them money to stop issues.
The idiots thought that suppressing an enjoyed substance somehow makes it go away, and even worse, thought that hurting the users would somehow stop the influx.
Drugs are terrible but punishing the users has not worked ever. It didn't work with Prohibition, it didn't work with weed/coke, and it won't work with any of these new, harder drugs either.
The best we can do is try to pressure the source to legalize and control dosage purity and offer as many rehabilitation and culture-war campaigns as we can against the practice.
Straight up arresting users is self-destructive for a society.

Well lots of conservatives really don't like the idea of people using chemicals to make them feel different.

Other than that, it's practically pure benefit if you can develop a culture of responsible use (or abstinence).

This kind of defeatist attitude doesn't help. Weed is legalized in much of the US, there's numerous studies on the psychiatric benefit of mdma, lsd, psylocibin, these can be made legal in therapeutic settings like medicinal Mary Jane and from there they'll move into the public arena. Idiots will be idiots but most people can handle their shit when high

>Eliminating drug cartels and allowing us to have ridiculous amounts of tax revenue is not weakening our society.
Allowing a repeat of the 1960s, however, is. What good is excess tax revenue if it's used to deal with drug-induced violence, car fatalities, brain damage, and reduction in work productivity?

>You're right, so not people like you.
But I'm very healthy, respectively intelligent, and quite strong. I'm not some limp-wristed effeminate manchild that needs drugs as a crutch to get through some pathetic excuse of a life akin to your own.

Enjoy ruining your life and sabotaging your future though.

Avance towards what?
We can't even put ourselves together on which way we should go.

>we
You're not White. You're not part of a White future.

>drug-induced violence, car fatalities, brain damage, and reduction in work productivity
Portugal has told us that this won't be a result of drug legalization.
People are going to get their drugs no matter what. They're not hard to obtain. Legalizing them won't increase usage, in fact if anything it will decrease usage with the "forbidden fruit tastes the sweetest" philosophy.
If people are going to use their drugs with or without legalization, we may as well shut down drug cartels and fund our economy with billions of tax dollars.

Also you're assuming that I use drugs. I don't need to be a drug addict to see the benefits of legalization and the consequences of prohibition. Prohibition does nothing except support drug cartels, which in turn supports crime.

youtube.com/watch?v=sbQFNe3pkss
Here, give this a looksee, and feel free to look up the experiment itself. Humans do degenerate things because they're bored or miserable, if we reduce violence in society and stop locking people away in cages perhaps fewer people will be so quick to leap to drug abuse to solve their problems. Or y'know we could just continue doing what we're doing, allowing violent criminal organizations to flourish with drug money while locking away drug users (not usually those who enable them) in metal cages like zoo animals with poor or no rehab programs and similarly poor or no job training for when they get out, resulting in a 60-80% recidivism rate every 3-5 years.

People who are happy, social, and have the ability to achieve will avoid drugs on their own because they do not feel the need to escape from a life which they find enjoyable.

there's no reason drugs should be illegal. they only kill and harm completely worthless idiots, which is a positive. a regular ass person can do a line of coke or smoke a joint once in a blue moon, you know like a regular person. just like a regular person can have a couple drinks now and then and not become an alcoholic. like a normal person.

Legalize:
>marijuana
>psychedelics
>most dissociatives

Give the death penalty for:
>opiates
>pcp
>xanax
>alcohol

legalize
>me

death penalty
>for you

>it's another worthless teenager talking about how much better society would be if everyone were an unemployed white supremacist retard like him

But the 60's drug-induced violence was due to drugs that weren't targeted as heavily under the War on Drugs.
In the 60s, most drug-violence was related to LCD and PCP and the like. However, the drug that the War cracked down on the most was Marijuana, despite the fact that it caused nearly no violent incidents, and those that it did cause were due to people driving too slowly on the street and getting crashed into on the free-way.
If they were serious about cracking down on drug-crime, Weed wouldn't even be included given the minimal number of incidents it caused on its own before criminalization. Coke, Crack, LCD, PCP, Meth, Heroin: These are the drugs of either danger to people around users or to the users themselves. But most of these were being taken care of in the 70's, and were nearly handled by the later 80's.
The point we're making is that non-violent offenders who are caught using Marijuana are treated with the same funds and resources that a violent offender is treated with despite being of negligible influence to society's safety

>All the innocent people in jail for simple possession
Total myth.

Take away one illicit cash crop and another will take its place. Dindus and the like will continue to chimp out and live in degeneracy.

>If niggers could think 30 seconds into the future, they wouldn't be niggers

If you're capable of thinking of these two things
>Muh Dik
>Muh Gibs

You have all the requirements to be a nigger.

The only two things that prevent niggers from having paradise on Earth are the presence of white people or the absence of white people.
It changes hourly.

Legalize, tax and regulate strictly

Set the age for hard drug use at 25+ and severely punish those who give hard drugs to those below this age.

I think recreational drug use is terrible but it's purely stupid to try and oppose individual's freedom like that with a failing policing system.

That chart is wrong. Check your facts.

I love how people think that if you legalize drugs then the cartels will all just start opening up family restaurants and software develop companies.

>Legalize:
>>marijuana
>>psychedelics
>>most dissociatives
>Give the death penalty for:
>>opiates
>>pcp
>>xanax
>>alcohol

>Stop liking what I don't like!

also PCP is a dissociative you idiot.

>mfw Rep. Conyers is still in Congress

Whatever. Just do it quietly.
And try not to get in the way.

>if you legalize drugs then the cartels will all just start opening up family restaurants and software develop companies.
American Lolbertarian logic at its best. They genuinely believe dindu gangs will disappear and crime will diminish in the inner city if drugs are legalized. They'll just find other means to illegally profit.

>hey genuinely believe dindu gangs will disappear and crime will diminish in the inner city if drugs are legalized

End everything a woman or a nigger ever says with "right now".

I love how he's doing the same shit any other politician would do when pushed to a corner, except Cred Forums will reason it and explain it like a magician. He's saying "legalize drugs 420 blazeit" because he wants to get stoners on his side. THey're a voting populace.

It's actually adorable. He's like a third grader.

Just legalize it already lmao

I mean you can drink alcohol to the point of blacking out but you cant handle a little weed?

Come on. Now tell me, do you see any alcohol distilling gangsters pr cartels? No you dont (aside from some moonshine memery) . But you do see drugdealers and shit.

It would really help African Americans to pull up by their bootstraps if they didnt go yo jail for petty shit like weed

>Stop liking what I don't like!
I'm pretty sure he's basing that on the fact that psychedelics and cannabis pose no threat of physical harm whatsoever. From an objective standpoint, it's understandable. LSD, magic mushrooms, mescaline, and obviously cannabis, have absolutely no reason to be illegal.
However, we need legalization of ALL drugs. As much as hallucinogens need to be legalized, it is the illegal sale of cocaine more than anything else that funds drug lords and their crimes.

>They genuinely believe dindu gangs will disappear and crime will diminish in the inner city if drugs are legalized. They'll just find other means to illegally profit.

And they're profits will be down 1000x fold.

No criminal activity even comes close to the amount of money one can make selling drugs.

>well I can't sell this G-pack of crack since its legal
>Guess ill just have to have my boys rob 100 purses. I'm sure the consequences of this victim crime will be the same as my victimless sales business.

LEGALIZE DRUGS AND EXTERMINATE CARTELS

DRONE STRIKES WHEN

>Criminals will after some period of economic hardship eventually find a new niche in which to profit.
>Therefor we shouldn't even bother to do this thing which will prevent non-violent drug users from being caged with robbers, rapists, and murderers, after which they will in all likelihood return directly to committing crimes after release, produce new streams of taxable revenue as well as jobs, improve the safety of drug products for those who do consume them, and put an end to the continuous waste of money on the WOD.

So what, do you just enjoy watching other people suffer when it isn't necessary, do you enjoy the simultaneously hilarious and also horrific recidivism rates of our almost completely worthless moneysink prison system? What exactly about the war on drugs that you think is good for our society in any way, shape, or form? All it does is consume vast quantities of money, fail to eradicate the drug market, and actively produce some of the societal ills which are responsible for people escaping into drug abuse in the first place?

>t would really help African Americans to pull up by their bootstraps if they didnt go yo jail for petty shit like weed

Horseshit.

It would make life worse for them.

Instead of being in prison for "drugs, LOL", the record would show that niggers went away for robbery, assault, rape, murder, and cannibalism.

The same crimes they're in prison for right now, except without a convenient excuse.

NO nigger is in prison for smoking crack.

No, it would stop urban youth from romanticizing drug dealers and urban "culture"

>Instead of being in prison for "drugs, LOL", the record would show that niggers went away for robbery, assault, rape, murder, and cannibalism.

I don't remember any such record, can you link it for future use?
I need to see this shit

>mfw people who are anti-drugs are for the use of prescription drugs because "they are not illegal!!!1"

Or at least, that has been in my experience. (These people also drink.)

I believe that we should legalise drugs. Let the people decide what they want to consentually put into their bodies, and not what the daddy gubuhrment wants. I'd much rather smoke cannabis once a day to fix my depression than waste years of my life trying to figure out what anti-depressant works for me and how many pills I should be taking a day to combat the side effects of the first batch of pills. It's fucking ridiculous.

I'm a lawyer.

99% of all crime is by drug-addicted grubs. If you legalise drugs you don't solve the problem of drug-addicted useless grubs who have no money committing crime to pay for their drug habit.

>but drugs will be cheaper
Doesn't help because these people have no money.

>but there will be no organised crime
Organised crime is a tiny fraction of what the normal person experiences as crime. Organised crime is reprehensible, but mostly self-contained. Drug addicts are the ones who break into random houses and beat grandma to death for spare change, not bikies.

Drugs create addicts, and addicts commit crime. Doesn't matter where the drugs come from. Having drugs illegal just makes them a little bit harder to get, which keeps most people off them.

Don't fall for it, he's just going to trade your gold for drugs. Believe me, I know.

well one of the reasons here was usually "m-muh degeneracy" but who gives a fuck about few losers who got left out of all the fun?

You made that up didn't you? Lots of niggers go to jail for crack use/possession. Does it give you some peace of mind when you make things up and exclaim them here as facts?

Retarded fuck

>addicts
Okay so then why are you not for the legalization of non-addictive drugs such as cannabis, LSD, magic mushrooms, mescaline, etc?

Is there evidence that Alcohol is addictive? If yes, then why not ban it?

Aren't a lot of fights, car crashes, violence, murder caused because of intoxication of alcohol?

A "work-for-drugs" problem seems viable. Give addicts menials tasks and reward them with drugs.

>Organised crime is reprehensible, but mostly self-contained.

What a retarded statement. Organized crime corrupts judges, police, politicians, and fosters an "anti-snitching" element; where no one calls the cops when grandma is beat to death for change.

You wouldnt have a job with legal drugs.

Fuck you and the legal system

They tried, doesn't work. Alcohol is too traditional.

They had tried to ban it, but found that prohibition didn't work.

So that's why, you know, people still want to ban drugs and guns. Because that will obviously work.

Why the fuck do you want to pay money to house people in a prison, how is that a good investment?

Using shit like drugs, alcohol, smoking etc. for fun is bad, but why does that mean it should be illegal if there is no victim for the crime except the user?

At least you won't be paying tax dollars into prisons, DEA, will get tax back from legal drug purchase etc.

I don't think drugs should be illegal.

Because it doesn't have to be physically addictive to be just as capable of destroying people.

>A "work-for-drugs" problem seems viable. Give addicts menials tasks and reward them with drugs.
Nah, they'll just smash and grab people's shit from houses.

Work-for-drugs already exists. You work, you get money, you buy drugs. People don't do it because they can't. They are addicts. You can't treat them like reasonable functional adults because they aren't.

Yeah dude, who needs law and order? Syria is a perfect role-model for society!

Excellent bait my friend, this will surely piss off all those straight edge nerds ;)

Game changer!

You cant stop this cunt. He's an animal!!!

>billions in tax revenue
Nice meme, not how that works Bernie. Take your degeneracy somewhere else

>it doesn't have to be physically addictive to be just as capable of destroying people
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not retarded enough to think cannabis can destroy peoples' lives and skip onto the hallucinogens. You must not be aware that you literally cannot take LSD or mushrooms in rapid succession. Not only are they not physically addictive, but you CAN'T be addicted to them. They don't work if you take them two days in a row, or even three days in a row. Even if you increase the dose tremendously, it still won't bring the effect in consecutive days. No one's life has ever been destroyed by these drugs, but you're probably just another sheep following the whole "DRUGS R BAD" propaganda.

How much would it be then? I haven't looked at any studies but I can't imagine why a 300-500 billion dollar industry wouldn't give you at least billions back in tax revenue.

Wouldn't it also generate legitmate jobs as well?

The alcohol industry has around 4 million people working in the US.

This argument shouldn't even matter, who cares what the drugs do when it's legal to kill yourself with alcohol, fat, sugar as well.

>I don't think drugs should be illegal
Neither do I, user.

I don't believe that any consentual act made between adults should be illegal. And you're absolutely right, it is a victimless crime. The war on drugs have ruined people's lives more than drugs themselves have-- all in the name of some "we're arresting this person for their own good!" mindset.

>The chart is wrong

no?

Because meth is a very toxic substance that effects anyone around it you fucking idiot. Its like mixing ever chemical in your house, battery acid, gasoline and other shit, then boiling it so everyone can smell the fumes then asking duuuuuuurrrrr whats wrong wit uitt??????

>No one's life has ever been destroyed by these drugs
Client 1 travelled to SA, experimented with hallucinogenics, developed severe mental illnesses, stabbed his mother to death and greivously wounded his brother.

Client 2 regularly used cannabis, said himself that the main reason he couldn't stay in gainful employment was because of his cannabis use, committed petty theft, eventually got caught breaking into a house, punched the dude who caught him and broke his jaw, looking at 5 years for it.

Client 3 was a mushroom user, couldn't hold down a job because of it (again, according to him - he fingered his own habit as his problem) - beat his partner due to the stress, she broke up with him, he followed her back to the house she was staying at with her new boyfriend, got into a fight, is now going to jail.

These are (some of) the people I am currently representing. Like I said, drugs are either the cause or a contributing factor in fucking 99% of crime. You don't know how bad it is until you have to deal with it every day for your job. You look at the studies and go "LOL IT'S NOT PHYSICALLY ADDICTIVE SO ITS FINE" while ignoring that alcoholism can destroy families, companies, and entire communities. Problem gamblers can do the same. It doesn't have to be fucking addictive.

But please, feel free to tell me more about my job and my clients from your basement with all your "internet" expertise, you fucking cretin.

also
>tfw your tax money is supporting a government who's politics you severely disagree with
>tfw your tax money is keeping people locked up for smoking weed or doing shrooms for several years while Mohamud the "black dick is expensive" child rapist gets to walk away after serving 180 hours of community service

Fuck this planet.

>$100 billion very conservative US drug trade
>75% reduction in price due to legality.
>$25 Billion legal drug trade
>tax at 10%

>$2.5 Billion in tax revenues

Can you even math bro?

You're a lawyer so tell me and provide hard evidence that drug usage is more likely to result and create violent crime than alcohol.

I'm very open to changing my viewpoint if you can actually explain with more than just anecdotes.

>muh anecdotes

You realize these stories are trivial compared to ones involving alcohol right?

I think Scott Adams had a blog post saying that Trump could "get Mexico to pay for the wall" by legalizing and taxing drugs, since Mexico supplies most of the drugs to the US, it would be moving a revenue stream out of Mexico and into America.

It might be a little bit complicated but weed shouldn't be illegal to begin with, and I think we're going to have to legalize heroin if we want to stop the heroin epidemic.

Cocaine I'm less sold on, but people obviously enjoy it and it's not going away. Same with meth. Pharmaceutical grade Pervitin has few, if any of the nasty side effects of home brewed meth, especially the pollution.

>there are a few amount of dumb, irresponsible drug users so let's keep drugs illegal for everyone!
The fuck does it matter whether it's legal or not? People are going to get drugs with or without legalization. Prohibition does nothing to halt drug use, legalization does nothing to increase it. The only thing that changes is drug cartels have much less profit to fund their crime, we get billions of tax dollars to fund our economy, and innocent, responsible drug users are kept out of jail. Murderers and thieves will still be punished the same, so legalization makes no difference on those cases.

>You're a lawyer so tell me and provide hard evidence that drug usage is more likely to result and create violent crime than alcohol.
No.

Such a discussion is impossible to have here. There have almost certainly been literally millions of words written on the topic of drugs. Innumerable studies, statistics stretching back to the 1800s, and more. You want me to read all that, synthesize it, present you the evidence for and against, and then make a compelling argument one way or the other? My billing rate is $500 an hour, billed in 6 minute intervals. I can provide you my BSB if you want.

But even if you were willing to pay, what's the point? Government agencies, universities, think-tanks - all have done exactly what you just asked me to do, and their product is available free on the internet. All you have to do is look for it. Make up your own mind. The evidence is out there.

Also
>MUH ALCOHOL
Yeah, so if one's bad - two's worse. It's that fucking simple. I would definitely be in favour of further restrictions on alcohol considering all the dumb shit that ends up happening because of it.

See above.

Two very relevant videos:
youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg

youtube.com/watch?v=wJUXLqNHCaI

If you're for alcohol restriction the same way drug restriction goes on then I have no quarell with you. At least you're consistent.

You've said at least twice now that drugs are "99%" causes of crime.

Explain why there isn't issues in countries like Portugal despite decriminalization.

>Also
>>MUH ALCOHOL
>Yeah, so if one's bad - two's worse. It's that fucking simple. I would definitely be in favour of further restrictions on alcohol considering all the dumb shit that ends up happening because of it.

So to clarify, you support the complete prohibition of alcohol?

>Because meth is a very toxic substance that effects anyone around it you fucking idiot.
So? I don't see anyone advocating for cyanide prohibition. What makes meth special?
People should be able to put whatever harmful substances they want into their bodies.

>few amount
Wrong. There are a few amount of smart, responsible drug users.

>Prohibition does nothing to halt drug use
It makes it prohibitively expensive and more challenging to obtain. It also creates a legal framework within which it can be addressed. If drug use is not illegal I can't stop you from doing it. If it is illegal I can have you locked up, I can have you put on lists, I can put conditions on you to prevent you from being in this neighbourhood, or being out of your house at these times, and I can ban you from seeing these people, and so on and so on. Making drug use illegal gives the state powers to deal with drug users that it wouldn't otherwise have, even if we assume that the illegality of drugs has no impact on usage rates - which I don't.

>drug cartels have much less profit to fund their crime
No, they have the same amount of profit, they just stop being drug cartels and become drug companies. Are you fucking retarded? Legalising crime doesn't mean that the crime stops happening, it means that it's no longer crime. Not to mention that drug cartels are a South American problem, not our problem.

>we get billions of tax dollars to fund our economy
to flush down the toilet trying to fix the problems you just created.

>and innocent, responsible drug users are kept out of jail
>innocent
>drug user
What part of crime does not make sense to you?

All research and successful drug policy shows that treatment should be increased, and law enforcement decreased while abolishing mandatory minimum sentences.

I disagree with claiming that no life has been destroyed by these drugs-- anything can destroy your life if you lack the control to handle it. If you can't control your eating habits, you get fat. If you can't control your drug use, prepare for the fucking mental shitstorm. Or, like you mentioned, even gambling can lead to major problems.

user, you claim to be a lawyer. Of course you're going to see the worst of the worst due to the kind of work you're in. I worked as a bouncer at a restaurant during a festival and the amount of drunken people acting disorderly was very frustrating to deal with, however, nobody should have the power to illegalise alcohol just because of these rowdy groups of people ruining it for everyone else.

Out of interest, are you for or against people consuming prescription drugs such as anti-depressants?

>Explain why there isn't issues in countries like Portugal despite decriminalization.
Because if drugs are not criminalised then there cannot be drug crime, by definition. You're falling for a statistical trick.

No, I don't. Alcohol is mostly used responsibly. Drugs are mostly used irresponsibly. Some drugs CANNOT be used responsibly.

>If drug use is not illegal I can't stop you from doing it. If it is illegal I can have you locked up, I can have you put on lists, I can put conditions on you to prevent you from being in this neighbourhood, or being out of your house at these times, and I can ban you from seeing these people, and so on and so on. Making drug use illegal gives the state powers to deal with drug users that it wouldn't otherwise have, even if we assume that the illegality of drugs has no impact on usage rates - which I don't.
Seems like your problem would still be solved by keeping drug-related CRIME illegal.
Why the fuck don't you want people peacefully using drugs inside their own private domiciles?
And if your argument is that it makes it more challenging to obtain, why were you complaining about crimes committed by people who want drugs? People wouldn't have to commit crimes to get their drugs if they were legal.

>What part of crime does not make sense to you?
Yeah, coming home from work and sitting peacefully in my own home smoking a joint makes me such a criminal. I'm such a threat to society.

Thanks for posting these links, user.

>nobody should have the power to illegalise alcohol just because of these rowdy groups of people ruining it for everyone else.
Actually, parliament should have this power. That's what it's for - passing laws.

>anything can destroy your life if you lack the control to handle it
You can't "control" an addiction. That's what it means to be addicted - your consumption is out of your own control.

>Out of interest, are you for or against people consuming prescription drugs such as anti-depressants?
I don't think its as simple as being for or against. It depends on the context of their consumption. If prescription drugs are being prescriped irresponsibly, if they're being sold under the table to people without prescriptions, if they're being abused, if they don't work, obviously I'm against that. But that doesn't mean that prescription drugs are inherently bad.

The things about illicit drugs is that they are inherently bad. Heroin, meth, cocaine - these things cannot be used responsibly. The fact of your usage of them is irresponsible, by definition. There is no redeeming feature - no argument for them other than a blind pursuit of freedom at any cost.

>Some drugs CANNOT be used responsibly

like what drugs?

>to flush down the toilet trying to fix the problems you just created.

What problems are created if drug use is already going on? Why doesn't portugal have these issues?

If drug abuse in portugal is decreasing then how is legalizing an issue?

>Because if drugs are not criminalised then there cannot be drug crime, by definition. You're falling for a statistical trick.

I didn't say crime went down, I said that there wasn't erruptions of new problems after decriminalization.

meth, bath salts can't be used responsibly.

>Alcohol is mostly used responsibly.
>Drugs are mostly used irresponsibly.

>If prescription drugs are being prescriped irresponsibly, if they're being sold under the table to people without prescriptions, if they're being abused, if they don't work, obviously I'm against that.
>But that doesn't mean that prescription drugs are inherently bad.
>The things about illicit drugs is that they are inherently bad.

Now you've let everyone in the thread know that you're a biased idiot because you believe that anything that's currently illegal should stay illegal despite ruining lives and needlessly putting people in jail for wanting to have fun in their lives and wasting my fucking tax money. Congratulations, nigger.

>Why the fuck don't you want people peacefully using drugs inside their own private domiciles?
Because it never stays at home. You use heroin peacefully at home, cool. For the first few months of your addiction that's fine. You've got savings and you've got a job and it's only occasionally. The need escalates though, because that's how addictions work. You stop going to work, or maybe you get fired because your performance turns to shit. You burn through your savings and now you have no money and need the drug more than ever. You start stealing, begging, mugging, hiring yourself out, and turn into garbage. If you're lucky you end up in my office on some minor charge, you get an understanding judge, you scrape up enough willpower, and you fix your life. If you're the usual fare you just spend the rest of your life on-again off-again the drug, in and out of court but never anything serious, and then you die at 50 years old having never accomplished anything and been a drag on the state's coffers. If you're unlucky you do something stupid and go to jail for a good long time.

Either way I make money.

>People wouldn't have to commit crimes to get their drugs if they were legal.
Yes they would. They can't hold a job so they have no money, so they commit crimes to get money to pay for drugs. Making it legal just means they buy from the corner store instead of the dealer on the corner. It doesn't magically mean that they can handle the drug better or get a job. You're totally ignorant to what actual drug addiction looks like.

>Yeah, coming home from work and sitting peacefully in my own home smoking a joint makes me such a criminal
See you in a decade, when you're pumped full of heroin.

Why does it matter if something can be used responsibly or not, isn't it more important to see how a specific thing creates and attracts violent behaviour? You can use alcohol responsibly but there is a lot of crime related to alcohol because people aren't responsible.

Heroin, meth, krokodil.

b-b-but they can be
look at mcafee

No problem, other user. x

>meth, bath salts can't be used responsibly.

You understand methamphetamine is a prescription drug in the US sold in 5mg tablets. FDA sets a ceiling of 60mg for therapeutic use.

I use meth, I have a mg scale and dose myself ~15mg/ day

am I not using meth responsibly?

>What problems are created if drug use is already going on?
Additional drug use.

>Why doesn't portugal have these issues?
If I had to guess it's probably because Portugal didn't blanket legalise all prohibited substances, and combined their new drug policy with a range of more effective drug policing techniques like drug courts and injection centres instead of just putting heroin in grocery stores. Decriminalise =/= legal. I don't know much about Portugal though, I might be wrong.

If alcohol is such a huge fucking problem why is the vast majority of violent crime committed by people on drugs or commiting crime to fund their drug habits, not drunk people, despite people on drugs being a much smaller proportion of the population at any given time?

Alcohol is nowhere near as dangerous as illicit drugs. The fallacious comparison that you retards make between alcohol and weed is completely irrelevant, because it pits the WORST POSSIBLE CASE of alcohol abuse against the BEST POSSIBLE CASE of drug "abuse". Why not compare the dangers of alcohol to the dangers of injecting heroin with a needle you found in the alley 3 times a day? Oh, because that's a fight you'd OBVIOUSLY lose, so better not fucking talk about that.

Fuck off, cunt.

you think about this in the wrong way. its not about drugs being good or save.
its about the prohibition being a useless tool to fight drug problems.
you are giving criminals billions of dollars, wasting millions of police workhours and flooding prison with millions of people for mere posession of drugs.

and you are not doing anything. drugs are easier and cheaper to get today than ever before.

>Because it never stays at home. You use heroin peacefully at home, cool. For the first few months of your addiction that's fine. You've got savings and you've got a job and it's only occasionally. The need escalates though, because that's how addictions work.
Watch 's addiction video. For the love of god, educate yourself.

>See you in a decade, when you're pumped full of heroin
Oh god, a snowball theorist. I've been smoking pot for years, and I have no desire to use any addictive drugs. I've never even touched a cigarette, nor would I ever.
Is it so hard for you to believe that some of us just want to relax after a long day? That some of us want to cope with the immense amount of stress life can sometimes bring forth? For example when my dog passed away last week.
Please just fuck off.
It's people like you who are responsible for millions of innocent lives being ruined by spending five or ten or twenty years behind bars. It's people like you who are responsible for costing us hundreds of millions of dollars on prison expenses, and causing our prisons to overflow. We barely have enough room in our prisons to contain all of the innocent people that are being locked in them without reason. It's sick. Absolutely sick. And the worst part about it is that you can't be educated because you actually, sincerely think that what you're saying is moral.

>Yes they would. They can't hold a job so they have no money, so they commit crimes to get money to pay for drugs. Making it legal just means they buy from the corner store instead of the dealer on the corner. It doesn't magically mean that they can handle the drug better or get a job. You're totally ignorant to what actual drug addiction looks like.

Aren't people going to do this regardless of if its legal or not, or is your point that making it legal would create a larger supply of people doing the same?

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but if you would clarify I'd appreciate it.

Didn't know that but thank you for teaching me. How long have you been using it and do you think that the majority of the population is able to be as reasonable as you are?

Isn't there issues with people moving on to other drugs? Also I'm relatively sure there is drugs that you can't use responsibly.

aic.gov.au/publications/current series/tandi/421-440/tandi439.html

I see differences between different drugs and their crime inside their own group. However looking at drugs vs alcohol I don't think there is any difference despite one being saturated with heaps of dangerous hard drugs.

>I mean come on, Alcohol is legal. Cigarettes are legal.

So? The fact that two poisons are wreaking havoc on society already is not an argument in favour of unleashing a third one. Stupid fucking pothead with your stupid fucking non-argument.

If tobacco and alcohol weren't already so popular and we knew how awful their effects could be, I would want them to be illegal too.

I pray the West will someday adopt Singaporean attitudes towards drug users and dealers. Our permissiveness has destroyed our cultures. Gas the potheads, morality war now.

because the #1 reason to incarcerate blacks would disappear.

I'll be drinking your delicious tears when marijuana gets legalized in another five states this november.

The drug mafia bribes department to combat narkotikami- green light supplies. Policeman grabs you on the street and puts it in the back pocket of a bag with the drug - 5-10 years in prison and the policeman to get a raise. Borbva drug most profitable business for the police.

>I pray the West will someday adopt Singaporean attitudes towards drug users and dealers. Our permissiveness has destroyed our cultures. Gas the potheads, morality war now.

Culture's pretty strong here. Your culture isn't going away because of drugs, it's going away because you are importing minorities left and right.

>mfw my natural sobriety was unaffected by 100mg and i am faster than any methhead could ever possibly be

challenge me

Why would drug induced crime increase if it was legalized, aren't you more easily able to buy drugs since the price will drop? Won't this stop people going out of their way to fuck people up just to get drugs or the money to buy drugs?

Drugs are degenerate but I still don't understand how legalization would make anything worse.

Meth can be used responsibly, and it is, incredibly often. almost all of the problems with illicit meth use come from producing it (pollution) and consuming impure meth. pharma grade meth is not significantly different from any other amphetamines.

Do you have a drink at the end of the day man? Or cigs throughout? Those are drugs

>legalize drugs
>CIA slush funds get squeezed
>suddenly terrorist attacks everywhere by rogue elements

Good luck. Get ready.

>"unleashing"
weed is everywhere.
legalization would make it unprofitable for dealers to sell weed because most people that are consuming anyway would buy their weed in regulated stores.
so you would actually decrease the supply on the black market thus making it harder for minors to buy drugs.
a certified weed store wouldnt sell to kids but the dealers dont give a shit.
also you would increase the quality of weed and so protecting the consumer from shit that dealers put into drugs to have more profit.

Legal or not, I still get mine.

Hurray bitcoin and darknets!

You're an unhealthy and unproductive disgrace to your ancestors. The only tears I'll shed are out of pity.

Pot makes you complacent and more likely to sit back and let it happen.

Regardless of his supposed views on drug legalisation, I think it's important to note here that Trump himself is a teetotaller. You don't reach those heights without focus and self-control.

Nobody's going to prison for possession unless they've got enough to be a distributor or they're a violent criminal.

>you are giving criminals billions
And? If you legalise it you're still giving the exact same people billions. They're just not criminals anymore because you changed the name. You don't get rid of drug cartels, you just turn them into drug companies. This is the most retarded argument I've ever heard.

>wasting millions of police workhours
Police exist to enforce laws. It's not a waste of their workhours when they do their job.

>"educate yourself"
>>>/tumblr/

>Is it so hard for you to believe that some of us just want to relax after a long day?
Then do it like a normal person and not with fucking heroin. Some drugs simply cannot be enjoyed responsibly.

>Aren't people going to do this regardless of if its legal or not, or is your point that making it legal would create a larger supply of people doing the same?
Both are correct. Legalising drugs will not reduce drug-caused crime because the crime is caused by lack of money, which legalising drugs doesn't fix. All legalising drugs can do is create more addicts. It's a no-win situation. Druggies will still be relegated to grubs, time and money will still be wasted on preventable crime, and all the downsides of drugs will still exist. It just creates the opportunity for more druggies.

>However looking at drugs vs alcohol I don't think there is any difference
Alcohol related crimes: drink driving, getting into a punchup at a party, public urination
Drug related crimes: breaking and entering, mugging, motor-vehicle theft, leaving needles around school ovals, etc. etc.

Plus, when you look at the number of people who use alcohol vs the number of people who use drugs the fact that drug use accounts for almost as much crime as alcohol use does you begin to see just how negative the effects of drug use is.

Weed wouldn't be everywhere if we'd actually start prosecuting people for it.

Harsh prison sentences for possession and outright execution for dealing would soon get rid of this epidemic. I've lived in Japan and Taiwan. I've seen first hand how societies can be drug free if the law is actually enforced.

>Pot makes you complacent and more likely to sit back and let it happen.
Yeah, confrontation is such a good thing.

>Then do it like a normal person and not with fucking heroin. Some drugs simply cannot be enjoyed responsibly.
Uh, so heroin is addictive and harmful? That has to do with cannabis and psychedelics how?
That aside heroin prohibition is a horrible thing, in fact worse than most other drugs because the poor addicts are isolated, mocked, and seen as criminals instead of victims. We need addiction support centers, not drug prohibition. Has it ever occurred to you that a lot of heroin addicts don't WANT to be addicted to heroin?

I forgot to add to my reply

Confrontation is a good thing. When your women are being raped by immigrants, you should confront them rather than sitting at home smoking weed and posting about it on the internet.

It seems sensible if you consider that the people who'll fall victim to legalized drugs were likely gonna do 'em if it was illegal anyway. It'll cripple the gangs, which are primarily run by spics and niggers, and empty out the prisons.

The war on drugs is a failure. It needs to end.

>Nobody's going to prison for possession unless they've got enough to be a distributor or they're a violent criminal.
thats just wrong

>And? If you legalise it you're still giving the exact same people billions. They're just not criminals anymore because you changed the name. You don't get rid of drug cartels, you just turn them into drug companies. This is the most retarded argument I've ever heard.

nope. why would you do that ?

>Police exist to enforce laws. It's not a waste of their workhours when they do their job.

where are the results though ? you are not stopping people from doing drugs.

>Weed wouldn't be everywhere if we'd actually start prosecuting people for it.

so law enforcement isnt really trying to get rid of drugs ?
thats just bs
also the harshness of prohibition isnt linked to how spread a drug is.
for example france has a way higher percentage of people smoking weed but has harsher drug laws than germany for example.

Reading all the pro-drugs posts in this thread actually makes me sad. I see a lot of retarded shit on Cred Forums but you at least gave me hope that the younger generations might start to clean up the mess that started back in the 60s. But I was wrong. Common Filth was right about you lot. You think taking drugs and acting like degenerates is fine so long as you're white.

youtube.com/watch?v=lAWAndggiOc

#WhiteGirlsFuckDogs confirmed. We black pilled now. The future belongs entirely to the strong people of the East.

>Uh, so heroin is addictive and harmful? That has to do with cannabis and psychedelics how?
Go back and check the OP, user. You're not in the argument that you think you're in.

Drug legalisation would make addictive, harmful drugs like heroin legal. That's what drug legalisation fucking means.

>the poor addicts are isolated, mocked, and seen as criminals instead of victims
Addicts get incredible amounts of money and support pumped into them at all stages of the criminal justice system. They don't get sent to jail, they get free healthcare, they have injection centres, and they have around-the-clock additional support available to them. Despite this, they are still addicts and they still destroy their lives. Heroin addicts don't want to be addicted, yet they are, and this addiction consumes and destroys them. Your genius solution to this life-destroying problem is to get more people addicted through legalisation?

>thats just wrong
Please, tell me more about the legal system that I am fucking part of. Your 4 minutes on Wikipedia is definitely equal to my 5 years at university and three years practice.

>nope
Not an argument.

>where are the results though
The ABS, which shows significantly lower rates of drug abuse than most countries in the world, and significantly lower crime rates too.

See Experiments, categorical evidence.

Drugs have been crucial at every major change in technology and culture of the human race!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasma_gondii

the argument is that drugs are morally questionable. not that i agree - they're not.

Now I'm just convinced that this entire thread is bait.

This is what pothead degenerates actually believe.

Legalization would remove a lot of money from the black market, and save a lot public money by reducing incarceration rates.

But then it gives niggers an excuse to nig, and makes it harder to keep them in jail.

It's a slide thread but it's got people talking! The faggot would have got many shekles.

Read some shit, ummm LSD my problem child and some books on the invention of silicon computer ships for a start.

That's the thing if you take the money away from crime googles are not going to goog!

Crime is what makes it cool.

I saw a pothead once and he looked annoying, he even laughed at something. Maybe he was laughing at me. I hate drugs and will never support legalization even if there are huge benefits in doing it.

...

>I
Lol...addicts commit crimes because the drugs are much too expensive. They would be very cheap if legalized (see the price of morphine) and crime rates among drug addicts will be even lower than normal people (because addicts don't have as many reasons to go outside)

>Pot makes you complacent and more likely to sit back and let it happen.

Depends on the person. This is why it's important to be conscious of happiness and knows what makes you relax and happy and what is going on inside of your mind. I've suffered through great anxiety so it took me years to realize how to truly sit back and relax, and now even my experience with weed and alcohol is improved.

>Is there really any reason to not legalize drugs?
the problem is that many drugs are impossible to quit. Heroin is one of those drugs.

Drugs like meth destroy the body and are also very hard to quit.

There are limits to what humans can bear.

It's not that addicts don't have enough money, it's that addicts have no money. Making drugs cheaper won't help. Only making them free will actually stop crime.

I'm not denying that an eccentric individual might gain some insights from doing LSD or DMT once but these cases are outliers. Drugs shouldn't be legal or easy acquire and their use normalised.

Clean living, productivity, and sobriety should be the norm and they're far from it today. The fact that you go on to complain about niggers in the very next post only further proves my point here. Your actions matter more than your race. Start taking personal responsibility if you want to live in a better world.

>Rampant crime from desperate broke addicts and families thorned apart

Eat shit!

>Drugs like meth destroy the body and are also very hard to quit.
Those drugs exist because the safe substances they are derived from (Medical Heroin/Morphine or Amphetamine in case of Meth) are illegal.

If those safe substances would become illegal , drugs like meth would quickly disappear.

I think we should either legalize drugs or go the Singapore/SAE route when it comes to drug felonies. No pussy shit in between.

Cocain, and heroin are not like booze. Weed and haxixe (or wtf is the english name) are not fucking tobacco!

They provoke extreme addiction and will fuck you up bad in the short term.

Let me put it this way: if, for an addict, a month's supply costs 100$, he would only have to rob 1 car stereo from a car.

If it costs 10.000 he would have to rob 10 times as many cars and/or people.

>safe substances
>Amphetamine

Hey...they give it to kids with ADHD. Those drugs are mostly amphetamine mixtures or derived from them..

This is not an enforcement issue. This is just because most Asian people do exactly what any authority tells them.

Watch this, newfags.

youtube.com/watch?v=Cg2ZQDXzJr0

I don't support legalization and just getting your meth off the counter at the drug store even though it's probably much safer. This sort of shit favors the weakening of society and greater availability of drugs is a recipe for disaster. People draw parallels with alcohol but it's not the same thing, because you can drink a glass of wine and not get drunk, but you can't snort a line of coke and not get high. Completely different ends.

I don't support criminalization of drugs either. It's insane we lock people up for possessing stuff that may or may not be bad for them, if they want to shoot up it's ultimately their choice.

Two things need to happen:

*Decriminalize the simple possession of narcotics. Establish an extrajudicial system with addiction relief centers to help, forcibly if required, addicts overcome their addiction and alleviate its root causes. Don't lock up people for victimless crimes.

*Build wall, literally or figuratively I don't care, and seriously reinforce law enforcement. Target drug traffickers with all the power available to the state. Ignore the Supreme Court and mandate the death penalty for large scale traffickers because ultimately, they are a major national security threat, mass killers, and facilitators of widespread degeneracy, not much different than terrorists except they operate in the longer term.

Social-democratic fascism is the solution. Fuck Libertarians.

>there are seriously people who think weed is addictive and nicotine-containing tobacco is not
Jesus H. Christ.

You think that's bad, try being a chemist/pharmacologist.

Literally smoking weed while I type this fuckboy

>>Billions in tax revenue

How the fuck is this a good thing? Every fucking time I see people post this it pisses me off.

>DUDE NO WE HAVE TO LEGALIZE DRUGS SO WE CAN EMPOWER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!

Yeah no fuck off. It's not even that the government wastes money, it's that it overwhelmingly funds shit that is destroying society.
>Welfare statism
>Toppling third world countries and destabilizing whole regions of the world
>Importing shitskins
>Subsidizing our countries obesity
>Funding hundreds of regulatory agencies staffed by niggers and catladies that do nothing but make things a pain in the ass for upstanding whites
>Funding communist brainwashing in the form of both public and "private" schools

Inb4
>MUH INFRASTRUCTURE
which is a tiny part of the very large budget and even then has a large percentage used to fund retarded money-hole shit like "light rail"

Eat shit faggots, keep drugs illegal and increase the penalties severely.

It's from his 2000 book "The America We Deserve".

Both of those societies have a VERY heavy drinking culture to make up for it.

No one is free of vices, and weed doesn't rot your liver.

>keep drugs illegal and increase the penalties severely.

You see, I like this guy.
He's thinking like a businessman. Keep drugs illegal so I have a fallback income to use.
Hell the way society is about to shit itself, us pharmacologists stand to make huge bank selling dope to kids, the poor, etc. All tax-free income too.

I love capitalism. Especially illegal capitalism. That's where the big money's at.

>Legalise drugs
>Destroy primary income of niggers
>End welfare
>Society is cured. Productive junkies who can keep a job and their habit get their fix. Everyone else can go fuck themselves.

anyone who believes in legalization and a ceasefire in the war on drugs should take note of the shrill, blinkered, self righteous and ultimately brainwashed responses by the warmongers in this thread

theyre never going to change, they feel it is their god given right to dictate the lives of people who choose to think and live, peacefully, different to them

the war on drugs will roll on
and the brainwashed cretins of prohibition will keep spinning the same old lines...

to them i say

FUCK YOU.

>the war on drugs will roll on
I dunno man, marijuana is gonna be legal in 5 more states in November. We're getting there.

It's certainly a start.

What about the laws concerning kratom? I really hope that that plant doesn't become illegal. And to put it on the same level as heroin.. ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous.

It's a very small percentage of people who would be using drugs don't solely because "there illegal". By legalizing drugs you stop feeding the prison system and pull the bottom out of international drug cartels. The money made from drugs could have so many positive uses. Hardcore drug addicts, if not locked in prison, will deteriorate rapidly and soon for of overdose or drug related illness. Everyone else will see this publicized in the state funded media PSAs and in turn choose not to do drugs. How about a "no medical treatment for overdose" policy? Use at own risk.

Jobs
Profits

You will never see any substances made legal that are currently illegal. The prison sentences employ too many people; and the prisoners themselves, in for minor drug offenses, serve as a dirt cheap labor force for a myriad of industries who outsource production to prisons.

On top of that, any time a substance proves to be more effective, cheaper, and more easily obtainable than big pharma option, then it will be made illegal.

Welcome to the USA, land of the "free".

There's a huge, mainstream backlash against that, supported by about 45 state representatives and about 45 senators, calling out the DEA on this bullshit. Mainstream American media is calling out the DEA also, and exposing benefits to big pharma and the prison industry. The senators request for further research before a ban is fronted by the head of the Senate finance committee, the group who gives the DEA their budget allowances. Looks like shit just got real.

>You will never see any substances made legal that are currently illegal
But we're on the right track for legal pot. Inevitable legalization for Cali, Nevada, Florida and possibly others in Nov

Nice. Good to hear that!

As a pharmacologist, I find any action by the DEA to be bullshit.
It's an agency that has no business existing. Leave drugs to science, not politicians and bureaucrats.

BTW, some places to check out-
dosemakespoison.blogspot.com/
youtube.com/c/thedrugclassroom/videos
psychonautwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
drugs.tripsit.me/

>death penalty for using a prescription drug.
well baited friend

This, especially if you made people verify their income in order to purchase their (cheaper than street) drugs. Junkies will do the minimum work for their fix rather than crime.

>Having drugs illegal just makes them a little bit harder to get

Why should that much tax money be used when it is just making drugs a little bit harder to get