War On Drugs

Discussion in 'Political Discourse' started by Michael Scally MD, Dec 2, 2010.

  1. Michael Scally MD

    Michael Scally MD Doctor of Medicine

    Portuguese Drug Reformers Look Beyond Decriminalization [FEATURE]
    Portuguese Drug Reformers Look Beyond Decriminalization [FEATURE] | StoptheDrugWar.org

    by Phillip Smith, December 01, 2010

    The Portuguese government has garnered well-earned plaudits for its nine-year-old policy of the decriminalization of drug possession, first last year from Glenn Greenwald in a White Paper commissioned by the Cato Institute - http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf , and just last month in a new academic study in the British Journal of Criminology. But while they applaud the Portuguese government for embracing decriminalization, some drug user advocates there are saying there is more to be done.

    Portugal broke new ground back in July 2001 when it decriminalized the possession of up to a 10-day supply of all illicit drugs. Under the new policy, drug users caught with drugs are not arrested, but are instead referred to regional "committees for the dissuasion of addiction." Those committees are empowered to impose warnings or administrative penalties, including fines, restrictions on driving, and referral to treatment.

    But in most cases, the committees simply suspend the proceedings, meaning that, in effect, no punishment is meted out. The decriminalization policy has been accompanied by increased investment in treatment and harm reduction services, including methadone maintenance for people addicted to heroin.

    As Greenwald found last year, and researchers Dr. Caitlin Hughes and Professor Alex Stevens last month, decriminalization is working. Hughes and Stevens found that while there had been a modest increase in drug use by adults, it was in line with increases reported by other southern European countries.

    While drug use increased modestly, Hughes and Stevens were able to report that the harms associated with drug use had decreased under decriminalization. They found a reduction in the rate of spread of HIV/AIDS, a reduction in drug-related deaths, and a reduction in drug use by adolescents. They also found that drug seizures had increased under decriminalization.

    "Contrary to predictions, the Portuguese decriminalization did not lead to major increases in drug use," the researchers concluded. "Indeed, evidence indicates reductions in problematic use, drug-related harms and criminal justice overcrowding.”

    For Hughes and Stevens, the Portuguese experiment was also significant because it showed that decriminalization reduces harm for all drugs, not just marijuana. "Such effects can be observed when decriminalizing all drugs," they wrote. "This is important, as decriminalization is commonly restricted to cannabis alone."

    Speaking in New York last week, Stevens elaborated: "The evidence from Portugal suggests that we could end the criminalization of users of all types of drugs -- and not just marijuana -- without increasing drug use and harms. It also shows the importance of continued investment in treatment services and harm reduction to reduce drug-related deaths and HIV."

    But while Portugal's decriminalization is gathering praise from abroad, the view from the ground is a bit more nuanced. Decriminalization has improved the lives of drug users, but much remains to be done, said Jorge Roque, a Portuguese attorney who works with the European Coalition for Just and Effective Drug Policies (ENCOD), the International Network of People Who Use Drugs (INPUD), and the Portuguese group Diferenca Real, which attempts to improve conditions for drug users there.

    "Decriminalization allowed drug users to stop being persecuted by the police and helped many of them realize they are not criminals simply because they chose to use drugs," said Roque. "And many people are now receiving help from the drug attendance centers," where addicted drug users may be sent after being caught. "Many drug users are trying hard to stay within the law, because if one isn't a criminal just for using drugs and one can pay for his drugs through his job, he doesn't want to be identified as a criminal, which was impossible before decriminalization."

    Decriminalization has also led to changes in policing, said Roque. "After some time, the police shifted from arresting drug users to going after small-time dealers," he noted. "The police realized that arresting the small-timers is the best way to catch the big sharks," he said, alluding to the continuing black market drug trade. "The black market remains. Decriminalization didn't stop that," Roque said.

    "The majority of drug-related crime wasn't caused by using a drug," the attorney continued, "but by committing an offense to buy drugs. Decriminalization is an important step, but it is only a step. Drug distribution is still forbidden in Portugal, and that means traffickers have a monopoly on the drug supply, and as a result, the prices are very high. So many people commit small thefts to buy their drugs, and the police try to control them and the drug neighborhoods with all the usual abuses."

    The Portuguese government should not be sitting on its laurels, Roque said. While it deserves praise for what it has done, it has not done enough, he said.

    "We are completely happy that the government decriminalized drug use, but the drug situation is very complex and touches on many different aspects -- legal, political, health, social, economic, morality -- and we have some demands that we think the government is not addressing because it is satisfied with what it has done with decriminalization," said Roque.

    That point was echoed by Joep Oomen, head of ENCOD. If the Portuguese government stops with just decriminalization, it will be just as hypocritical as any other government, he said.

    "By decriminalizing the use and possession of small quantities of illegal drugs, Portugal has reduced the immediate damage of drug prohibition," Oomen said. "The police don't persecute users and petty dealers as much, and problematic users find their way to health services. But decriminalization has not solved the main problem of prohibition: Drugs continue to be distributed by traffickers who inflate the price, impose criminal marketing methods, and have minimal concern for product quality or the safety of consumers. If Portuguese authorities do not take the next step toward legal regulation of the market, their policies will remain as hypocritical as those of any other country," he said.

    But that's unlikely any time in the near future, said Roque. Even other drug reforms this side of ending prohibition are now stalled, he said.

    "After all the international news reporting on the success of decriminalization in Portugal, the politicians' egos are so big they think they don't need to do anything else," said Roque. "But many drug users want to see safe injection sites, heroin maintenance programs, and the like, instead of just decriminalizing use. Similarly, the cannabis reform bill is still stuck in parliament waiting for approval. The government says it is busy with the international financial crisis and now our own public deficit, and can't do anything, even though this could mean revenues for the government."

    With its drug decriminalization policy, Portugal has indeed become a beacon to the world, a model of progressive drug reform that could and should be emulated elsewhere. But as Roque and Oomen make clear, decriminalization is only half the battle.

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Dec 8, 2012
    Big_paul and heady muscle like this.
  2. Michael Scally MD

    Michael Scally MD Doctor of Medicine

    Re: Drug Decriminalization

    All drugs should be legalised to beat dealers, says former minister
    All drugs should be legalised to beat dealers, says former minister - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

    By Nigel Morris, Deputy Political Editor
    16 December 2010

    All illicit substances, including heroin and cocaine, should be legalised, according to a former drugs minister who will today become the most senior politician to push for a dramatic change in the strategy for tackling Britain's drug problems.

    Bob Ainsworth will argue that it is better for addicts to receive their fixes on prescription rather than relying for their supply on the international criminal gangs that make billions of pounds from the trade.

    As a Home Office minister, Mr Ainsworth was responsible for drugs policy and, as the Defence Secretary, he witnessed first-hand the huge opium fields in Afghanistan that supply the West.

    He will call in the Commons for a fundamental rethink of how the country responds to drug addiction. He will receive the backing of senior MPs of all parties who will argue that the current tough stance on drugs is counter-productive.

    Mr Ainsworth told The Independent last night: "We need to take effective measures to rob the dealers of their markets and the only way that we can do that is by supplying addicts through the medical profession, through prescription. We cannot afford to be shy about being prepared to do that."

    He said: "It is far better they are going to a doctor, or going to a chemist and are getting their script [prescription] than turning tricks as a prostitute or robbing their mates."

    Mr Ainsworth said his departure from the frontbenches now gave him the freedom to express his view that the "war on drugs has been nothing short of a disaster".

    He will tell MPs today: "Prohibition has failed to protect us. Leaving the drugs market in the hands of criminals causes huge and unnecessary harm to individuals, communities and entire countries, with the poor the hardest hit.

    "We spend billions of pounds without preventing the wide availability of drugs. It is time to replace our failed war on drugs with a strict system of legal regulation, to make the world a safer, healthier place, especially for our children. We must take the trade away from organised criminals and hand it to the control of doctors and pharmacists."

    He will also say: "Politicians and the media need to engage in a genuine and grown-up debate about alternatives to prohibition."

    Mr Ainsworth said he had seen the way that the heroin trade partly funded the insurgency in Afghanistan. He said: "Bombs and bullets and the wherewithal to produce IEDs [improved explosive devices] are bought by funds supplied by international drugs."

    He said the massive number of foreign troops in Helmand had not been able to stamp out the heroin trade, so it was time to consider the alternative of "taking the market away". Mr Ainsworth received cross-party backing for his call for a fresh look at the current drug strategy.

    Peter Lilley, the former Tory deputy leader, said he favoured legalising cannabis, while continuing the ban on hard drugs. But he added: "I support Bob Ainsworth's sensible call for a proper, evidence-based review, comparing the pros and cons of the current prohibitionist approach, with all the alternatives, including wider decriminalisation, and legal regulation."

    The Labour MP Paul Flynn said: "This could be a turning point in the failing UK 'war on drugs'."

    The call met with a stinging retort from fellow Labour MP John Mann, who carried out an inquiry into hard drug use in his Bassetlaw constituency while Mr Ainsworth was drugs minister.

    "He didn't know what he was talking about when I met him with my constituents during my heroin inquiry and he doesn't know what he's talking about now," he said.

    The Labour leadership was swift to distance itself from Mr Ainsworth's ideas.

    "Bob's views do not reflect Ed's views, the party's view or indeed the view of the vast majority of the public," a spokeswoman for Ed Miliband said.

    A party source described the legalisation proposal as "extremely irresponsible".

    "I don't know what he was thinking," they said.
  3. Michael Scally MD

    Michael Scally MD Doctor of Medicine

    Re: Drug Decriminalization

    The Evidence is in: End The Drug War

    January 22nd, 2011

    I’m not libertarian on the drug issue. I don’t insist on an individual’s right to harm himself and those around him and I’m concerned about the personal and social problems and the psychological and physiological risks associated with anything from cannabis, through cocaine to heroin. But I have come to the realization that we need to rethink the war on drugs, first because it is not clear that ending it will actually increase drug use, and secondly, because continuing it funds Taliban, shatter societies and pervert politics in Latin America and weakens law enforcement in the US.

    An increasing body of research and experience tell us that we can’t say with certainty that legal status would increase drug use. Portugal decriminalized drug use in 2001 and consumption patterns have been remarkably similar to those in comparable countries. A comprehensive study of decriminalization policies in the US found that the legal status of cannabis has no significant effect on the total demand for or the choice of drugs. A later study from Australia had the same conclusion. Such studies have convinced important voices within the medical community, among them the respected British Medical Journal, that we should move away from prohibition as the dominant approach to drugs.

    Similarly, studies of projects of legal heroin provision, especially in Switzerland, find mainly positive results, both in terms of the health and quality of life of addicts, drug related crimes, and also, significantly, in a steep reduction the number of new users. This shouldn’t be surprising: Legal access to drugs reduces the significance of the illicit drug market; and with it the aggressive marketing of the drug dealers who cynically exploit vulnerable people. Positive results are also found in the Netherlands, Germany and Canada.

    However, some drug policy researchers and politicians are reluctant to accept these results and continue to call for the same policies that have failed for the last 40 years. The drug problem has not decreased in the face of harsher punishments and sustained efforts in the Americas and overseas. There is no rational foundation for positing that any “new” prohibition based approach will finally solve the drug problem.

    The alternative to prohibition is not a free market for drugs, but regulation. Allow me to abuse a Reagan quote: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. Cannabis could be taxed to keep prices high, and sold only in licensed and tightly regulated stores, similar to alcohol monopolies that keep consumption down in Scandinavia. Heroin could be regulated much more strictly, for instance through provision only to registered addicts.

    Yet while we don’t have any real evidence that prohibition reduces drug use, we know a lot more about its effect on global, organized crime, corruption and insurgencies. We know the scale is huge: Though the exact size of the global illegal drug market for obvious reasons is unknown, most studies put it between 150 and 350 billion dollars. One of the best attempts at estimating the size is done by researchers at the RAND Corporation, who give a mean estimate for selected cannabis, heroin, cocaine and amphetamine markets of 115 billion dollars in 2005, with a high estimate of 215. That translates to a global estimate of 160 billion dollars, with a high estimate of 300 billion. Other studies give even higher numbers. We know that this market would be substantially reduced if we legalized drugs.

    We know this money is used in the worst possible ways: The Taliban-insurgency in Afghanistan, receives between 40 and 60 percent of its financing from the heroin trade. The IEDs killing or maiming our soldiers as well as Afghan civilians are paid for by heroin addicts in Baltimore, Portland and New Orleans. We know that “the war on drugs” is responsible for the deteriorating situation in Mexico. The fear that Mexico might become a failed state is becoming ever more realistic. The violent Mexican drug war might have claimed 12,000 lives in 2010 alone. Drug related corruption is eating away at the police force at court system. We know that ”the war on drugs” has been a vital component in the long armed conflict in Colombia; and that the conflict as well as the coca trade is spreading. We know that criminal networks in Colombia and Mexico pose serious security threats to the US. Strong American pressure notwithstanding, more and more prominent Latin Americans have come to favor legalization, including Mexican ex-presidents Vicente Fox and Erneste Zedillo, and Colombian ex-president César Gaviria.

    We know that “the war on drugs” puts a tremendous burden on the US criminal system. A full half of the inmates in federal prisons are drug crime convicts. In state and local prisons, the share is approaching a quarter of inmates. Add to that all the thefts committed by drug addicts who seek money to buy drugs such as heroin, all the murders, all the violence and the all the illegal weapons somehow connected to the criminal drug trade. We know that the “the war on drugs” is perhaps the single most important factor explaining the explosion of the prison population since 1980, both through the sheer number of drug users and drug sellers behind bars, and through the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences. It should worry all people who value liberty that the US locks up more of its citizens than any other country

    Had Americans seen all the consequences of the war on drugs, rather than outsourcing them to Mexico, Colombia or Afghanistan, the war would’ve been ended long ago. That was what happened with prohibition in the US: The growth of the mafia and violence contributed to its repeal in 1933. However, prohibition also did little to curb drinking. A strong downward trend in alcohol use prior to prohibition, was reversed a few years after its introduction. Studies show that consumption was about to reach its pre-prohibition levels when it was legalized, after which it remained stable for several years. Most people acknowledge prohibition was a mistake; most also refuse to learn the lessons.

    With the benefit of hindsight, I don’t think the war on drugs could have ever been won; but I understand why waging war against the drug epidemic was a natural instinct for many, maybe most, politicians a generation ago. However, conservatives should always have realized how difficult that task was. And for those who believe that only naïve libertarians or pot-smoking liberals would contemplate legalization, it is worth re-reading what Edmund Burke wrote on the topic 215 years ago:

    We no longer prohibit wine, beer, brandy or tobacco. Instead, we regulate their sale and use, and rightly so. Against opium and other drugs, however, we have launched a global war. That war is long lost, not only economically, commercially and medicinally, but as Burke anticipated, very much morally too. That’s why it should be ended.
  4. Michael Scally MD

    Michael Scally MD Doctor of Medicine

    Re: Drug Decriminalization

    Portugal drug law show results ten years on, experts say
    AFP: Portugal drug law show results ten years on, experts say

  5. Michael Scally MD

    Michael Scally MD Doctor of Medicine

    Re: Drug Decriminalization

    Surgical Strikes in the Drug Wars

    By Mark Kleiman
    September/October 2011

    Summary: Neither intensifying the drug war nor legalizing all drugs offers much hope of reducing drug abuse in the United States or lessening violence in Mexico. The key to changing outcomes on both sides of the border is changing the incentives facing dealers and users.

  6. Michael Scally MD

    Michael Scally MD Doctor of Medicine

    Re: Drug Decriminalization

    How is this saving the state money!!! This goes directly into Scott's personal pocket. He owns a chain of drug testing centers! Also, what about testing those profiteering off of the state contracts.

    Florida Welfare Drug-Testing Law Blocked by Judge
    Florida Welfare Drug-Testing Law Blocked by Judge - WSJ.com

    ORLANDO, Fla.—A federal judge temporarily blocked Florida's new law that requires government-assistance applicants to pass a drug test before receiving the benefits on Monday, saying it may violate the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

    Judge Mary Scriven's ruling is in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union that claims the law is unconstitutional. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a 35-year-old Navy veteran and single father who sought the benefits while finishing his college degree, but refused to take the test.

    Nearly 1,600 applicants have refused to take the test since testing began in mid-July, but they aren't required to say why. Thirty-two applicants failed the test and more than 7,000 have passed, according to the Department of Children and Families. The majority of positives were for marijuana.

    Supporters say applicants skipped the test because they knew they would have tested positive for drugs. Applicants must pay $25 to $35 for the test and are reimbursed by the state if they pass. It's unclear if the state has saved money. During his campaign, Gov. Rick Scott said the measure would save $77 million, but it's unclear how he arrived at those figures.

    Under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the state gives $180 a month for one person or $364 for a family of four.

    Those who test positive for drugs are ineligible for the cash assistance for one year, though passing a drug course can cut that period in half. If they fail a second time, they are ineligible for three years.

    The ACLU says Florida was the first to enact such a law since Michigan tried more than a decade ago. Michigan's random drug-testing program for welfare recipients lasted five weeks in 1999 before it was halted by a judge, kicking off a four-year legal battle that ended with an appeals court ruling it unconstitutional.
  7. Michael Scally MD

    Michael Scally MD Doctor of Medicine

  8. Michael Scally MD

    Michael Scally MD Doctor of Medicine

    Millard Baker likes this.
  9. ergomaniac

    ergomaniac Member

    Re: Drug Decriminalization

    Obama says drug legalization not answer to cartels | Fox News
    and yet offers no solution to the violence that occurs through people trying to control black market goods. legal or not this subject is enormous. money involved incalcuable. it effects everyone. not just dopers.
    as long as nothing changes, everything stays the same. really if it dont work, why try to fix it.
  10. Michael Scally MD

    Michael Scally MD Doctor of Medicine

    Re: Drug Decriminalization

    South America Sees Drug Path to Legalization

  11. Michael Scally MD

    Michael Scally MD Doctor of Medicine

    Re: Drug Decriminalization

    Reefer Madness
    ‘Too High to Fail,’ by Doug Fine


    Published: August 3, 2012

    “Too High to Fail” is a good rebuttal to those who say stoners never accomplish anything — Doug Fine did.

    He has written a well-researched book that uses the clever tactic of making the moral case for ending marijuana prohibition by burying it inside the economic case. We’ve become a ruthless society, and almost everything (I’m looking at you, Environment and Health Care) has to be sold as “first, it’s good for business.” To his credit, Fine doesn’t do what so many of us do and scream, “Can’t we just stop jailing potheads because that would be the right thing?” Also to his credit, he never admits he’s one of them.

    The “war on drugs” is America’s longest war. It has cost taxpayers $1 trillion in the last 40 years, Fine notes, and it has turned our nation into “the most highly incarcerated society in history.” In 2011, a global commission on drug policy (whose members included Paul Volcker, George P. Shultz and former presidents of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico) declared that “the global war on drugs has failed.” Sixty-¬seven percent of Americans agree. Antonin Scalia and Pat Robertson are now to the left of President Obama on pot.

    In a way, the author of a polemic on marijuana policy suffers from the odd case of having too many facts on his side. To a person coming to this subject pot-¬agnostic, it might seem as if the issue is being loaded. No, it is loaded. As Fine points out, the real addicts of the drug war are the law enforcement agencies that live off this senseless game of cops and robbers.

    “Too High to Fail” takes the form of a fly-on-the-wall account of Northern California’s burgeoning legal cannabis industry. Fine, an investigative journalist, takes us to Mendocino County, where he follows one plant from seed to medical marijuana patient in the first county in the nation to decriminalize and regulate cannabis farming.

    Fine fits in well in Mendocino. Bearded and driving his vegetable-oil-fueled truck, he looks and plays the part. But be warned: if you are indifferent to drug culture, you may roll your eyes at some of the stoner talk. When Fine says, describing a Mendocino grow house, “I felt like I was inside a Peter Tosh album cover photo,” even I wanted to tell him he was harshing my mellow.

    Mendocino County is depicted here as a kind of democratic utopia where local law enforcement and cannabis farmers are on the same side. In 2008, the county passed a land-use ordinance called Chapter 9.31, which authorized growers to cultivate up to 99 cannabis plants (this has since been reduced to 25). Rather than turning the county into a police state, legalization made it safer. Revenues in the municipality increased, and cannabis farmers were treated as law-abiding citizens.

    Fine calls Mendocino the state’s “progressive lab,” because it was essentially engaging in an act of civil disobedience. It may have been in accordance with California law, but ever since states (17 now, plus the District of Columbia) started legalizing medical marijuana, the federal government under a Democratic (Clinton), then a Republican (Bush) and now a Democratic administration has consistently resisted going along. Consequently, Fine observes, Mendocino has a kind of fifth season: helicopter season. “Helicopter noise is Mendocino County’s summer soundtrack,” he writes of the federal choppers circling overhead. “Something you just have to deal with in warm weather, like the summer before 10th grade when it was ‘Born in the U.S.A.’ ”

    The most eye-opening and persuasive parts of the book explore the revenue and benefits to be had from cannabis without a single joint’s being lighted. Throughout human history, cultures from Mongolia to Peru have used the non-psychoactive cannabis plant for food, shelter, clothing and medicine. Early drafts of the Declaration of Independence were written on hemp paper, and the covered pioneer wagons that took America westward were made of cannabis fiber. In 1942, cannabis prohibition was suspended because of a shortage in industrial supply during the war, and the government actually encouraged farmers to grow it, using a propaganda film, “Hemp for Victory.”

    The place industrial cannabis is not found yet, Fine points out, is in the above¬ground American economy, thanks to its listing as a Schedule I narcotic. The Drug Enforcement Administration’s official stance is that it has no medical value at all: “Smoked marijuana has not withstood the rigors of science — it is not medicine, and it is not safe.” O.K., Fine seems to say, but tell that to the doctors with evidence of its ability to shrink tumors and ease the effects of chemotherapy; or to the seniors of Orange County who depend on medical marijuana to treat their arthritis, and the doctor who uses it to treat his glaucoma; or to the 30-year-old Iraq war veteran with the shrapnel injuries who thanks God every day for this drug. It is prescription drugs that are now the leading cause of fatal drug overdoses — more than 26,000 each year. Also each year, over 23,000 Americans die of alcohol-related causes. None have died from cannabis alone.

    As I said, the issue is loaded. And yet the side that has all the load never seems to win in America. The ending of “Too High to Fail” — spoiler alert — is a real bummer. Just as Fine was about to send the manuscript to his publisher in November 2011, the feds cracked down in Mendocino. The 9.31 program was essentially abandoned, and the local, participatory democracy Fine immersed himself in for a year was pushed back underground.

    He should have seen it coming. Halfway through his adventure, Fine was pulled over by a state trooper when he left the friendly confines of Mendocino and crossed into Sonoma County — where it’s cool to get high on wine, but not on pot. Fine was doubtful that anyone in California actually used the old war-on-drugs tactics until this incident, but it was a reminder that some people are still in battle mode.

    Relating how he was taken into custody, Fine describes something he calls “Panzer’s Paradox” — basically, the fact that “when it comes to distribution, there is no uniformity in cannabis legal interpretation now,” as William Panzer, a lawyer specializing in cannabis defense, says. (Panzer was an author of Proposition 215, the medical-marijuana act passed in California in 1996.) Fine boils down the difference between a cannabis-friendly county and an unfriendly one to “the career ambitions or personal cannabis views of the local D.A. and sheriff.”

    He also paraphrases “The Art of War”: “If a war is ill conceived at its core, it can’t be won.”
  12. Dr JIM

    Dr JIM Member

    Re: Drug Decriminalization

    I couldn't agree more and what a fu...ing waste of my damn tax dollars!
    Leancuisine likes this.
  13. Curt James

    Curt James Junior Member

    Re: Drug Decriminalization

    $1T in tax dollars in forty years? That's tragic.

    If they legalized heroin you can bet I still wouldn't shoot up. Wish they would legalize all drugs.

    Tax dollars could be spent on education and rehabilitation rather than interdiction and incarceration.
    Leancuisine likes this.
  14. ergomaniac

    ergomaniac Member

    Re: Drug Decriminalization

    obvious, isnt it! something isnt working.
    and all this time i thought there was no quorum for what what i saying :rolleyes:.
  15. Michael Scally MD

    Michael Scally MD Doctor of Medicine

    heady muscle and Curt James like this.
  16. Curt James

    Curt James Junior Member

    Thank you for posting this video.

    A forty-year war! Outrageous.
  17. Curt James

    Curt James Junior Member

  18. Michael Scally MD

    Michael Scally MD Doctor of Medicine

    Leancuisine, A-a-Ron, Walker and 2 others like this.
  19. Dr JIM

    Dr JIM Member

    Nice review Dr. S. Unfortunately, I don't believe the effects of drug decriminalization in the US would be as benefical in our high strung winner get's all society.
  20. Curt James

    Curt James Junior Member

    Did you watch the entire video? Somewhere near the end, I believe, they tell about Portugal legalizing everything from A-Z. What had been their number one problem (drug crimes) dropped to 13 or 14.

    I'd love to see them do the same here in the U.S. Currently, we have this monstrous money pit. It's just an incredible drain on resources, both financial and human.