nice one.
scroll down to The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.
I paricularly liked this bit:

I read somewhere that in England in the 16th century it was compulsory for people to grow hemp in their gardens to provide rope for England's growing navy.

Did you miss or just disregard the fact that by orders of magnitude legal alcohol and legally prescribed medication is more responsible for those in the emergency room than illegal substances?

Don't make the mistake that assuming that anyone in favor of decriminalization is also "in favor of drugs". In my case I am quite certain that it is not a Binary Condition (more often than not I would rather a long haul trucker was taking some sort of stimulant than falling asleep at the wheel) but on the flip side, all drugs are largely an illusion and come at a cost (not just monetary) and more often than not the balance sheet ends with "Account Overdrawn". As I stated I am pro decriminalization NOT for users/addicts but for the rest of us. I do care that people with health issues are wrongfully treated as criminals but I am far more concerned with the huge and negative effects on so many aspects of society caused by another costly illusion - that any war on drugs can ever succeed at anything good. It is not only a net loss, but a HUGE loss for all of us.

i live in a country where the taxes on alcohol are very high.
this results in a weird situation where it's actually much cheaper (and often easier) to get a prescription for sleeping pills and anti-depressants, or buy your allowance of prescription-free stuff from the pharmacy (e.g. codein in cough syrup).
weird, because people develop this sort of multi-drug-addiction, which, judging by the effects i can see, is much worse than plain old alcoholism. people aren't just getting drunk, they're freaking out.

Besides the possibility that such a an issue cane be improved by education and responsibility of the Health Care system, even at it's current state I suspect fewer "freakouts" attempt to drive cars fast than those drinking to excess. So to settle anyone's suspicions with evidence just what is the per capita rate of drug and alcohol related deaths (including auto accidents, please) in your country? As I mentioned I'm far less concerned about "experimenters"/addicts freaking out than slamming into families on the road or robbing stores, banks, etc to have enough money to support inflated costs of their habit(s).

Drug abuse is a symptom

Being a motorcycle rider. I find texters/cell phone users, more dangerous on the road than those driving under the influence. Lot's more of them in the wild to kill or maim me than those under the influence.

Another very sad story of drug use in these United States: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2802253

Your right.

Studies have shown that cell phone users are more impaired than drunk drivers.

I have never said any drug is better or worse. I say they all come with a cost, sometimes a terrible cost. There is no victim less crime when using drugs for pleasure. You can't con me into believing that pot smoking is fine and never affects a person. I have seen the effects for 50 years. I know all too well.

"Did you miss or just disregard the fact that by orders of magnitude legal alcohol and legally prescribed medication is more responsible for those in the emergency room than illegal substances?"

Jim Dandy statistic that may or may not have any factual basis. However, by your statement we should try to eliminate drugs.

Good luck with that (and include alcohol in the list of drugs while I refill my glass).

The United States tried Prohibition, and all it got as a result was an organized crime establishment that persists to this day. Sensible regulation beats prohibition six days a week and twice on Sunday, because persons are not by nature ascetics and attempting to make them so by fiat is a fool's errand.

Just my two cents.

Oh! And meet the Pusher Men. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6PRXplf77I

The best way to do it is the way the UK treated tobacco. I can remember when most people smoked. There was tobacco fug everywhere. Everyone knew it was harmful, but everyone also knew that simply trying to prohibit it wouldn't work. We had the example of America before us.

So they did it in stages. First they made all public establishments have smoking and non-smoking areas. That was generally agreed to be entirely reasonable; people shouldn't have to inhale tobacco smoke if they didn't want to. Then the smoking areas were banned because the staff who worked there were being forced to inhale the smoke. Smoking was banned in workplaces for the same reason. At first it was the employers who banned it, but then it became a legal ban. Smoking was banned in cars and other enclosed spaces.

The result of all this is that smoking is now seen by almost everybody as a filthy habit that no good citizen indulges in. If it ever gets banned altogether, I think there will be very little opposition.

Of course, the invention of vaping has helped enormously by giving nicotine addicts another, less antisocial way of getting their fix.

Maybe but you apparently don't understand the definition of "victimless" since a "victim" requires a "perpetrator'. If they are one and the same the entire concept of crime becomes meaningless as everyone, without exception, has been driven to or made choices having negative results on themselves for a time. The law isn't supposed to protect us from ourselves. That is a particularly nasty can of worms.
So did you miss the stats from Center For Disease Control or not cross check with the Dept. of Health or any other reputable source? Those aren't someone's random conclusions as they are not opinions or conclusions at all but a simple compilation of numbers of recorded events. That said it might not do you any good to actually check evidence if your last sentence is any indication of your "powers of logic" since it should be obvious to anyone that extending a failed war on arbitrarily illicit substances to presently legal ones is a non sequitur, just adding to the problem. These are Health and Medical issues, not legal/criminal issues and are best controlled through Health and Medical education and support, not criminalization and elevating the value to that of contraband, fueling organized crime and disinformation.... or are you unaware of what occurred in the US after the 18th Amendment was ratified?

Another disturbing video about drugs: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2825599

This is probably a true statement. "... motorcycle rider. I find texters/cell phone users, more dangerous on the road than those driving under the influence. "

I used to make the joke that 33% of the fatal accidents are alcohol related. The other 67% are caused by people who can't drive any better than a drunk.

I don't know why enorbet can't read my posts. I never mentioned legal versus illegal. Why does he keep saying that? He was getting on my nerves with the "can you read comment"

Just my opinion, if you use drugs then you are causing some hardship somewhere and more than likely to yourself, your family, your place of employment and even to the security of the nation.

Do I read? Yes I do. Here you go.

"Heart disease: 614,348
• Cancer: 591,699
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 147,101
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 136,053
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 133,103
• Alzheimer's disease: 93,541
• Diabetes: 76,488
• Influenza and pneumonia: 55,227
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,146
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 42,773"

Now you tell me from that, what caused all of those? I can look at more than a few on that list and suspect that their lives may have been better had they not smoked, drank, did drugs, engaged in unsafe behavior when drunk and on drugs and may just maybe would have not committed suicide had they had a better mental outlook.

Bet a few could have lived a better life had they eaten better and got some exercise.

Yet no where on that list does it show the cost of their actions. No where does it tell me about their family and community.

I know my cousin died early from smoking and drinking and other drugs but his death was ruled a heart attack. What a needless loss. What a foolish outlook that one can expect to live better by using recreational drugs. Free from the government doesn't mean it's OK either. How long do you think a heroin addict can last? How well can they expect to do in society? You haven't solved anything, just moved it. I prefer solutions.