[travisathougies]

> That said, we're a half century into the drug war and it's obviously not working.

You know... despite what is commonly claimed, Prohibition worked great. During Prohibition cirrhosis was down, deaths from liver disease were down, and deaths due to drunkeness was down. The only thing not working was people wanted to get drunk.

Given that no one here today has lived in a world where drugs available today are legal, how can we honestly claim that what we're doing is 100% ineffective and merits scrapping it? Few people here in favor of decriminalization are contending with the possibility that the situation we have today is better than what it would be were drugs decriminalized. Since no one's ever seen drugs being decriminalized, I don't understand how this claim is made with such confidence.

And no.. Switzerland and Portugal are not comparable because what is being proposed here (and implemented in states like Oregon) are nothing like those countries.

[alldayeveryday]

Agreed on these points. I would argue that this whole "war on drugs" is a misrepresentation of the situation. The system does not seem to be wanting to stop drug use - instead it seems to want to ensure that it profits of off drug use (profit can be money, it can also be the desired harm it causes to the population). I see no evidence of the system trying to end illegal drug use - in fact I see the opposite.