If we look at historical experience, we can see why opiates were criminalized in the first place. China provides the perfect example of what happens when businesses dealing in highly addictive products are able to prey on an unprotected population. The pandemic of addiction became so severe, that it sparked the Opium Wars.

We often draw faulty analogies between prohibition of alcohol during the 1920s, and prohibition of illegal narcotics, without analyzing the differences. Alcohol was, and continues to be, ingrained within our cultural tradition. Heroin, is not. Removing the prohibition on its use would, however, decrease any disincentives to use it. It is just bad public policy.

While legalization of marijuana might be considered, because the market can said to have spoken, and the majority of users know that its supposed harmful effects have been greatly exaggerated, and it poses very little substantial threat, aside from use while driving, other narcotics have been evaluated as harmful by society at large, otherwise their use might be more prevalent.

We are a self-governing society, and therefore, it is up to us to decide as a society which narcotics we wish to make available, and which narcotics we wish to spend our resources on prohibiting. I believe that society at large would agree that opiates such as heroin are worth investing our resources into. Prohibition failed because it was a top-down policy imposed on society by activists using guilt as a means to push through their agenda. Prohibition against marijuana might be considered similar. If we want to consider repealing a prohibition on other drugs though, why don’t we let the people who will be affected, and whose tax dollars fund the drug war, decide whether they would like to make opiates and other harder drugs freely available in society. After all, isn’t that who the laws are designed for?

Cannabis was originally turned on because the guy put in charge of “the war on drugs” had interests in timer and logging, if cannabis was legalised it would have ment cheaper produced hemp ruining his tidy profit.
I’m afraid that until the people are allowed to vote on this the suits in power will keep it locked down and keep the decision out of the public domain

This post was mentioned on Reddit by mark2100: If we weren’t so fucking stoned all the time, we’d be out there marching on this shit. Legalize it! Woohooo! 420! 420! Hellz yeaahhhs!…

yeah! this story has entered the popular today section on popurls.com…

Prohibition must stop. If I want to clean my clock with pure heroin then count me out for the department softball picnic I’m riding the H train. My hospital bills will be insignificant next to the trillions of dollars and millions of lives we have already screwed over in the name of “The War on Drugs.”

The negative numbers that will bottom-line our legacy to the next generation can be less ginormous. The witch-hunt doctor’s Rx is for every bust to numerate a bigger tax-load over a smaller denominator of payers. Spend more on prisons than on schools. My second witch’s frugal opinion is to grow your own. More consumer discretionary dollars will stimulate the rest of the economy when they are not depleted by the black market.

A clause about interstate commerce provides only bogus constitutionality. The policy on the number-one cash crop in the land is; no taxation; yes eradication; but money to frustrate enforcement grows on trees. The authors of the Constitution never intended to divert tax revenue to outlaws. America rejected prohibition, but its back. Swat teams aren’t slowed down by lack of a stinking amendment.

The demonized substances never had their day in court. Nixon promised to supply supporting evidence later. Later, the Commission evidence didn’t support, but no matter. The witch-hunt had funding in perpetuity. No amendments can assure due-process under an anti-science law that never had any due-process itself. Science hailed LSD as a drug with breakthrough potential, until the CSA (Controlled Substances Act of 1970) halted all research. Marijuana has no medical use, period. Lives are flushed down expensive tubes.

The RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993) makes an exception to the CSA allowing the Native American Church to eat peyote. A specific church membership should not be prerequisite for Americans to obtain their birthright freedom of religion. Denial of entheogen sacrament to any American, for mediation of communion twixt the soul and the source of souls, violates the First Amendment.

Freedom of speech presupposes liberty of mental state. The Constitution doesn’t enumerate a governmental power to embargo diverse states of mind. How and when did government usurp this power to coerce mental conformity? Politicians who would limit cognitive liberty lack jurisdiction.

Common Law must hold that the people are the legal owners of their own bodies. Socrates advocates knowing your self. Mortal law should not presume to thwart the intelligent design that molecular keys unlock spiritual doors. Those who appreciate their own free choice of personal path in life should not deny self-exploration to seekers. Should schools stop teaching that the right to the pursuit of happiness is inalienable by government?

Simple majorities in each house could put repeal of the CSA on the president’s desk. The books have ample law on them without the CSA. Americans are already liable for damages when they screw-up. The usual caveats remain in effect. Strong medicine requires prescription. Employees can be fired for poor job performance. No harm, no foul; and no excuse, either. Replace the war on drugs with a frugal, constitutional, science-based, drugs policy.