I understand your post to be talking about marijuana. Even now in the cannibis clubs of Califorina you can buy many many different types of pot. The truely good pot is grow right here in the US, not in foreign countries as it once was. If it comes from a seed it can be grow by anyone. Hydropnics is unheard of in the smuggler's world. The cost is too high and the profit is much less. Smugglers sell pot that is mass grown, there for it is usually not the highest of a quality. Right now you can buy seeds for any of the 'turbo weeds' right through the mail from Holland(if it doesn't get stopped by the U.S. Postal Service). Chances are if you are buying high quality weed it is grown right here in the US.

As for the other drugs, they are a chemical compounds made in a lab. By the time it hits street level it is cut more than once to boost the profit. 'Walgreens' would have the best of these without being cut. Thats realism. I understand your logic but in this case it is flawed.

Other than weed, the social and personal costs of drugs are too high to justify legalization of 'every' drug. The taxes required to offset rehab costs and other medical issues associated with drug addiction would keep illegal drugs much cheaper and on the street. Plus, what doctor would prescribe a highly addictive narcotic to someone with no medical need?

?!
What doctor would prescribe beverage ethanol, or tobacco?

The ancients recognized the difference between what is evil, and what is simply declared evil.

malum in se: evil; wrong by itself
malum prohibitum: wrong by prohibition

Our prisoners of Drug War are criminals, because we say so; not because of anything they've done to harm anyone.

I could give you some names if you are looking for a referral but I would rather not. {snark}

Legalizing drugs would mean they are legal without a doctors consent. No prescription needed. People are going to do drugs anyway, why not tax them, make millions, and save billions in court, law, and prison costs? People that want to get help do and will. Those addicts that want to be addicts will be addicts anyway. Proper education, with talks in schools from present addicts (who won't come forward for this purpose now in fear of proscecution) would eventually make kids really see how bad these drugs are. Eventually the addicts would die off and we would have less drug abuse. Eventually the social and personal cost would be practically nil.
As for the Doctor thing, hypotheticly speaking, if someone is already addicted they would have a medical need, wouldn't they? In addition, doctors already prescribe some pretty potent stuff that addict thousands when used for medical needs to start with.
In the end, it really comes down to a person's right to do what he wishes with his own body. Its legal to peirce your penis or clitoris but not to do drugs?

OTC narcotics.... First, what drug company would sell a blantantly addictive drug without a doctor's prescription that has no no purpose other than to get the user high and has a high risk of death? (Sounds like a task for the tobacco companies.) No amount of liability insurance would cover this. Second, the addicts now who cannot afford their drugs will not be able to afford the legal ones without resorting to crime. Where is the social benefit?

Proper education? How can proper education compete with the incredible effects of heroin, crystal, or X? If you have tried these, you will know.

If an ethical doctor is asked by an addict for a script of narcotics with no medical reason except for the addiction, the doctor is doing harm to the patient. That is not a proper role for a medical professional.

If the addicts die off, who pays those medical costs? As long as there is a supply of OTC narcotics, then there will always be addicts. A vicious circle of addiction and death results with the tax payers eating the costs.

In the end we are responsible, but getting a PA does not have the same social consequences as getting addicted to a dangerous substance and causing havoc in the community.

As for alcohol and tobacco, I am looking for a study that details the costs versus the revenues received in taxes.

My last thought is that it is hard to analyze the insanity of drug addiction in a sane rational debate.

I think pot should be legal. That's so obvious by now, I think one would have to be stoned to miss it...

Cocaine and smack... hmmmm... I not sure about. True, they are no more addictive than cigarettes.. but the side-effects -- in terms of behaivor -- are more of a public hazard, IMO.

Meth... no way. I've done a fair amount of research into meth, and written quite a bit about it. Most experts will tell you that shit makes the other drugs look like popcorn. It's just too risky, IMO.

I am totally against the government legalizing drug use. Already drug
related deaths is at a all time high, and to say its okay to use drugs
under the guidelines of the law is a outrage. The only thing that would
concern the government would be to see to it that the drug dealers
will pay a large tax fee IF busted.

There's a government related website that talks about Drug abuse,and drug misuse.
That site is Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Website
In the past this agency don't believe that drugs will ever be legalized, and this crap
about prescription weed for the so-called Eye problems is under investigation.

I support a investigation on the matter, due to the fact that people are
claiming eye problems to smoke weed legally, and most individuals do not
realize the damage that's done over the years mentally.
I am speaking from personally experience with drugs for 15 years, and I
am one of the lucky few who quit in good health.

In 2001 I completed Junior college with a degree in Substances Abuse
Counseling, and the only reason why I was the best in my class what
because along with the book knowledge I shared my personal experience.

In closing, After working in the profession for four 4 years now. I have
witnesses many deaths because of drugs, and there is NO WAY that I
would go to the voting polls to help sign someone's death certificate.
To legalize drugs would be a way to save drug busting cost, and besides
drugs will always be on the streets. Thanks for reading my comments.

First, I'd like to applaud you for getting out of your addiction. I know people who have suffered and I know how difficult it can be.

But I don't think the issue is that drugs should be tolerated. It's more that stopping the flow of drugs as we are now, by targeting users and dealers indiscriminantly, is not working. By diverting our time and energy to attack distribution we can at least show some dent. Jailing the average junkie does nothing, especially considering that it might actually be easier to get dope in prison than outside. For abusers we have rehabilitation programs which are far more effective when they're not in the prison setting, which adversely affects the mind and encourages negative behaviors to escape the hardships of life. I don't think anybody would say any type of drug use is a good thing.

As for marijuana, its medicinal benefits are debatable, but it has been used for medicinal properties for thousands of years. It is not nearly as addictive as other drugs, and does not leave near as bad an impact on the body. There isn't one solitary death that can be attributed to marijuana use alone. Even the harmfulness of the smoke toward the lungs can be greatly reduced with smokeless methods, such as the use of a vaporizer or bong. I've heard similar things about the reduced addictive properties of certain natural hallucinogens (mushrooms, peyote, etc.), but I don't know much about that area.

While I did not have 15 years of addiction, I had enough time with them to know their effects on lives. I was not so lucky to escape without permanent scars. I would never support the insanity of legalizing ALL drugs.

I agree with most of your post, with the exception of weed. I never saw anyone die from weed, and I do not believe it is a gateway drug either. I believe it has useful medical properties that can help many people. If the US government would stop suppressing research in this field the truth will be known.