| You created a bit of a strawman in your post. But anyways, look below. From http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/cri...: > Past year illicit drug users were also about 16 times more likely than nonusers to report being arrested and booked for larceny or theft; more than 14 times more likely to be arrested and booked for such offenses as driving under the influence, drunkenness, or liquor law violations; and more than 9 times more likely to be arrested and booked on an assault charge. You can look at that website for several statistics. You will note that that website shows increased offenses for drug users that are not related to traditional "drug-trafficking" or "black-market" activities (so this can’t be blamed on the prohibition of drugs). > I understand the connection between the drug trade and the violent crime, pertaining to the criminal element of the black market; but the notion that I'm buying weed today, raping/murdering tomorrow, is nonsense. You should make a distinction between hard and soft drugs. Claiming that weed is safe, therefore all drugs are safe isn’t correct – and it is a strawman. That website clearly states that drug-users have a significantly increased crime rate. I am not going to discuss in detail the causes of crime for drug users (which doesn’t have anything to do with any statement I made). From the same website: > Another dimension of drug-related crime is committing an offense to obtain money (or goods to sell to get money) to support drug use. According to the 1991 joint survey of Federal and State prison inmates, an estimated 17 percent of State prisoners and 10 percent of Federal prisoners reported committing their offense to get money to buy drugs; And the conclusion: > The evidence indicates that drug users are more likely than nonusers to commit crimes, that arrestees frequently were under the influence of a drug at the time they committed their offense, and that drugs generate violence. |