[pstuart]

80,000 deaths per year in the US attributed to alcohol: http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

It's a dangerous drug. It makes people violent. People drink and drive and kill people. Let's make it illegal too, eh?

Drug addiction is a health issue and should be treated as that. Making drugs illegal CREATES MORE CRIME.

We could stop this madness if only people would STOP SUPPORTING THE MADNESS.

Sorry to shout, but I'm sure you're an otherwise intelligent individual, but you are failing in this subject.

[genwin]

You seem to be assuming that a war on drugs must make them illegal. It needn't. Instead the war could do whatever is most effective (per dollar spent) at reducing usage. I support rehab for alcoholics, and measures to reduce drunk driving. I don't support the war on drugs in its current form.

[dragonwriter]

> You seem to be assuming that a war on drugs must make them illegal. It needn't. Instead the war could do whatever is most effective (per dollar spent) at reducing usage.

You mean, it could be legalization, taxation, and using taxes to fund intervention, referral, and treatment programs, and not be opposed to legalization at all?

If so, then its obviously not what people supporting legalization are arguing against when they are arguing againt the War on Drugs.

[genwin]

Yes, that's consistent with my top-most comment in this thread, where I describe a different, gentler and constitutional war on drugs.

I wouldn't stop at using the taxes from the sale of hard drugs to reduce their usage. If spending $X against drug usage lead to $2X in net benefits, I'd support spending $X no matter how much higher it was than those taxes.

A key component would be rehab, in which case it might be tough to make the drug legal. Suppose crack is legal and so there's some parent high on crack all day, providing only the most basic of care for the kids. If it takes keeping crack illegal to legally force that parent into rehab, then I'd want crack to stay illegal, but change the consequence to rehab.

[dragonwriter]

> Suppose crack is legal and so there's some parent high on crack all day, providing only the most basic of care for the kids.

If the "most basic care" is adequately meeting the society's minimums, this obviously doesn't justify criminalization.

If it doesn't, then child neglect can be made illegal (hint: it already is), independently of whether it results from drug abuse.

> If it takes keeping crack illegal to legally force that parent into rehab

Compulsory-as-an-alternative-to-prison rehab obviously requires that something be illegal, but it doesn't require that the illegal thing be the drug of abuse. Rehab as a condition of a suspended sentence could conceptually be tied to any crime for which drug abuse was a contributing factor even if the drug was legal (IIRC, this is sometimes done with alcohol in, e.g., the context of DUI, even though alcohol is legal.)

So, the premise here that making the drug illegal might be essential to make compulsory-as-an-alternative-to-prison rehab an available tool is simply false.

[genwin]

> So, the premise here that making the drug illegal might be essential to make compulsory-as-an-alternative-to-prison rehab an available tool is simply false.

I accept that. I support whatever it takes as a minimum to get the person into rehab, even if the minimum bar for parenting is raised so that crack addiction doesn't reach it. If the majority of crack users could be model citizens while high then my mind could be changed.