@Tettleton's Crew -- You, sir, are a moron. I would ask you to actually put down your beer and read for comprehension - something you should have learned in , what, 1st grade? I did NOT say I support any of the afore-mentioned things. I said that people, some people, somewhere in this world, will defend almost anything. *I* did not make a claim to support anything: Socialism, murder, war on drugs, etc. I simply said that they are defensible to SOMEONE. God damn, boy, get your fucking head out of your ass and exercise the few brain cells you have. You *IDIOCTIC* post had a title: "Can anyone defend socialism? " Your *IDIOTIC* post requires a one-word answer: "Yes" and does NOT require an entire thread. CLEARLY people can defend socialism, as it happens all the time on this thread. LIKEWISE, my simple-minded friend, I suggested that people can defend murder, pedophilia, drug USE, etc. I state this because people defend these concepts all the time...and the POINT IS...stupid humans can defend any stupid concept that passes between their ears. Well....except maybe you. I don't think you have the intellectual capacity to think outside your sad, narrow little world view and try to understand why people support various things.

I vehemently disagree with Putin on a great number of issues....BUT, I certainly understand where he is coming from. I could make arguments that support his view point. I just don't agree with them. THEREFORE, again, your question, as posed in the title of your post, is stupid, narrow minded and a waste of time. Much as you, my friend, are a waste of perfectly good oxygen.

Our supposedly bloated drug budget is between 11-13 billion per year, a good portion of which is put into prevention and treatment.
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/09budget/exec_summ.pdf
Any assessment of "cost" has to compare the costs of enforcement with the social costs of drug use.

Now, the legalizers neglect to point out that drug use puts an enormous strain on our healthcare and social service costs. For example, how many hospital emergency drug episodes occur every year? How much do these cost? How much does drug-related child abuse and domestic violence cost? How much does long-term hospitalization due to drug use cost? How much does the drug-related spread of AIDs cost? How much does drug-related mental illness cost?

Why have decriminalization efforts led to increases in drug use? Why have governments who have implemented decriminalization backed off from these policies?

I'm fairly certain most people who are for legalization of drugs that would lead to frequent hospitalization are also in favor of people who get hospitalized for drugs covering their own costs. Sure, if you hold that government has to pay for healthcare, you have an argument that government should also dictate what substances people use. If you don't hold that, though, and you have a person who pays for all their own health costs (directly through money or indirectly by working at a company which offers healthcare benefits), why can't they be allowed to use drugs?

Drug-related spread of AIDS? I think I know where you're going with this, but can you elaborate? Drug-related mental illness... previous comment, if you're not holding that other people should pay for your healthcare then you're not forced to concede that other people have a right to dictate what you do to raise the cost of paying for your healthcare.

Child abuse and domestic violence is another matter. Maybe some of the money being spent on enforcement of drug laws could instead be used on helping domestic violence shelters and other preventative and recuperative measures? That way you still cover the negative effects of drug use in that department if they occur, and if they don't occur, there's more resources going to help victims of domestic abuse via non-drug-related means.

I'm sure that last bit sounds like fuzzy math, and it may well be; I'm tossing ideas out here because I was intending to discuss the idea instead of debating right/wrong.

Putin, would you support banning alcohol and tobacco?

Putin I guess you can't even read your own chart.
The major portion was spent on Law Enforcement and Interdiction, not prevention and treatment.
The money spent on prevention and treatment has to be the most wasted money in the history of United States public policy.
Regardless all four areas have failed and the White House didn't even bother to list the true cost of drug enforcement, incarceration.

You also ignore he horrible racism associated with drug law enforcement in the United States. 62% of drug convicts are African American yet they are 12% of the population. African Americans drug offenders are sent to state prison at 13 times the rate of white offenders. African Americans convicted of drug offenses are sent to federal prison at 57 times the rate of Whites convicted of drug offenses. Of the 25.4 million people arrested on drug charges since 1980 33% were African American even though they are only 12% of the population. No statistical theory supports that disparity. The American legal and law enforcement system is hopelessly racist.

According to the Global Commission on Drug Policy arresting and incarcerating people fills prisons and destroys lives but does not reduce the availability of illicit drugs or the power of criminal organizations.

So Putin says we need to continue this absolute failure because "of the potential of domestic violence." So growing up in a single-parent household because one of your parents is in prison is a "good" thing for Putin's infantile logic.

A kid growing up without a parent isn't child abuse to Putin's infantile logic.

Long term hospitalization for drug use isn't a problem in either the Netherlands or Switzerland, but when you are Putin defending the indefensible you need to make things up as usual.

The only word that is accurate in Putin's post is "fuzzy" because it basically defines the mindset he presents to justify the war on drugs.
Small minds like Putin's have small arguments.

Barbara ending says that drug hospitalization would be a problem.
We have drug use now and drug hospitalization isn't a significant part of the war on drugs now. Less than 1/3 of the cost of the war on drugs according to Putin's government document.
What a bang up job that is doing as well by the way.

Of almost 43,000 new cases of AIDS reported in the United States in 2009, only 4,200, less than 10% were drug related. 90% were acquired through sex.
Sorry to demolish your inaccurate line of reasoning.

@Tettleton's chew - Ask yourself one thing... Is it really racism? Or is it the fact that the black community, though 12% of the population, is in fact the source of more than 62% of all drug crimes.

"Barbara ending says that drug hospitalization would be a problem."

I think you're missing that I'm agreeing with you. A problem that wouldn't be government's to handle from a financial point of view, if I ran things. If you OD and get sent to the emergency room, you get served, of course. No one gets turned down. But you still have to cover the bills. And not expect government to bail you out. If you can't cover the cost of the bills... then don't do drugs.

"Of almost 43,000 new cases of AIDS reported in the United States in 2009, only 4,200, less than 10% were drug related. 90% were acquired through sex.
Sorry to demolish your inaccurate line of reasoning."

Dear, I was asking Putin to clarify this, not agreeing with him. ;)

Also, fuzzy was my word.

Hi, I live in Spain where we have a National Healthcare plan since decades. If any of you have any question, I'll be glad to answer.

(And yes, we still can choose our doctor, or, if we don't like it, pay for a private health insurance)

Hmm... I've been trying to stay away from the discussion of national healthcare because I won't pretend to be knowledgeable enough to critique it from a "does it work?" perspective. I suppose with a drug conversation it's inevitable.

What drugs (if any) are legal in Spain?

Alcohol and tobacco are legal. It is not legal to smoke in public places (bars, hospitals) but you are free to smoke in the street (but not near a park!). Weed, cocaine and all the others are forbidden to buy, sell or use in public places but not at home. Home-growing weed is not forbidden, but there is a limit to 2 plants per house.

Reading the latest posts about the costs of drug abuse, in Spain medical treatment for drug-abuse is also paid by the National Healtcare. Costs derived from alcohol-abuse, car accidents (by any cause: drugs, speeding...), obesity, tobacco-abuse are also taken by the National Healthcare.

If you're going to force people to pay their own healthcare because they do drugs, then you're going down a long and slippery slope. How about people who ride motorcycles? Or eat too much McDonalds? Or play competitive sports?

On drugs and race. A couple of things.

1 - Arrests of African Americans may be more frequent because drug trafficking in African American communities is more likely occur in easily detectable locations and public spaces, including locations where regular drug selling occurs (this is especially true with crack cocaine). White drug trafficking is more hidden and thus harder to detect. Drug selling in white communities is done through word of mouth, far fewer people are involved in the process, and it's much harder for police to infiltrate and make arrests. This disparity in availability of public vs private spaces is likely due to disparity in overall economic conditions, and is not a function of race.

2 - There is likely a higher police presence in poorer communities than wealthier communities, due to their being a higher overall crime rate. I believe the Uniform Crime Report confirms this. Police concentrate in areas where drug sales are distributed by gangs. This is more typical of poorer communities.

3 - Drugs like crack cocaine have declined tremendously, and the main beneficiaries of this decline are poor areas and areas predominated by minorities, which crack had devastated. Legalizers forget that the main victims of crime related to drug use are poor people and minorities. Look at statistics on the victims of violent crime. About 50% of victims are black despite being 12% of the population. Efforts to reduce this violent crime thus help the black community.

Culoman, I read that Spain's unemployment rate is 21%. What part does the tax burden needed to sustain Spain's social programs play in that unemployment rate?

Putin, I see you have no explanation whatsoever for the racist conviction rate differential between whites and African Americans both accussed of drug related offenses.
Basically because there isn't one.
This forum is excellent for exposing corrupt intellects.

Draugnar, outside of the ignorance of your statement I see you didn't address the conviction rate of African Americans vs Whites when both are accused of drug offenses.
It's alright. I know you don't have much of a brain. Bigots never do.

Yonni, individuals should be responsible for their own lives and actions. What a concept. People who play sports now aren't covered by the government Yonni so what fantasy are you talking about.
Individuals who eat fast food should be responsible for their own blood pressure and diabetic supplies.
Many of our social ills today come from the government's interference with personal responsibility.
Individual freedom and individual responsibility for their actions is the basis for society.

It is entertaining to read posts about what drugs are legal and illegal that completely ignore the reality that legality doesn't affect use. You can get any drug you want anywhere in this country despite the billions wasted on the war on drugs. People do enjoy their fantasies. The budget deficit wakes them up though because this kind of indefensible social stupidity is fiscally unsustainable no matter how hard fools click their heels together and dream like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz.

Life is like a boxing match my friends. The golden rule is "protect yourself at all times." You can't count on the government or anything else to do that job for you. Protect your own health. Protect your own finances. Protect yourself because relying on anyone else is a fool's errand.

You can get around the whole question of social costs of drug use somewhat by denying people emergency medical care unless they can pay for it. To me, such a policy would be inhumane and unconscionable .You'd have people dying outside the emergency room doors and medical facilities would demand payment before they treat somebody with a gunshot wound, for example. I think you're going to have a very difficult time with such a policy.

Furthermore, you're not going to completely get around the question of cost. Making drugs cheaper and legal and then denying people medical care and eliminating investment in social services will simply create more homelessness, more domestic abuse, more anti-social behavior, more poverty, more crime.

As for AIDs, the tremendous decline in the transmission of AIDs by drug use points again to the smashing success of drug laws. Legalize drugs and then see what happens to those numbers. Look at past numbers of AIDs transmission by intravenous drug use. Also, you neglect to look at cases of AIDs transmission by sexual contact in which the partner got AIDS from drug use.

The problem of disparity is not specific to drugs. It's a function of class and access to resources. How likely is it that an African American arrested for a drug offense is an indigent defendant vs a white person arrested for the same crime? Ironically your ideologically worldview would only intensify these disparities since you want to gut all social service spending.

TC, we evidently live in different countries. If I break my leg playing hockey, I'm going to get free medical coverage despite putting myself in a high-risk situation. I wasn't trying to get into a debate about the merits of universal healthcare but, rather, objecting to the notion of denying (free) healthcare to drug users.

Putin, I'm still interested to hear if you'd support prohibition.

Regarding AIDS and drugs. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Needle exchange programs and similar programs have also greatly reduced the transmission of HIV. Regardless, most illegal drugs aren't taken by needle anyways.

"Free" medical coverage Yonni? Or do you mean that someone besides yourself pays for the coverage you receive. Do you not realize there is no such thing as "free" medical coverage?

I'd support prohibition, particularly for hard liquor, yes. I said before that prohibition, even with its poor enforcement, worked.

It's free for the person getting the coverage. That's what matters.

Putin doesn't mind you being incarcerated at a grossly higher rate because of your ethnicity, that isn't inhumane and unconscionable.
Putin, you need to post your "you'd have people dying outside" rant on the children's board.
Do you not have any argument more sophisticated than that?

Here is some quality evidence I'm sure will be way over your head.
"Blacks are victimized by crime at rates that are dramatically higher than the rates at which Whites are victimized, and at every income level, except for the poorest (annual household income less than $7,500). Whereas White victimization rates decline as income increases, Black victimization rates rise as income increases."

Of course bigotry in America's police forces and courts play no role in this whatsoever and are "color blind."
Oh the woefully ignorant.

In six California counties independently surveyed in 1995, 100% of those
individuals sent to trial on drug charges were minorities, while the
drug-using population in those same counties was more than 60% white. (The
Black and White of Justice, Freedom Magazine, Volume 128)

If you are not a racist you assume that "there is an equal distribution of criminals (and law abiding citizens) among all racial and ethnic groups and blacks are no more likely to
be criminals than are whites."
Accepting that statement the only reason for the massive disparity in arrests, convictions, and incarcerations between the races is racism.
Criminal conviction rates in the United States differ drastically across racial groups.
The jail incarceration rates for African-Americans, for example, is 800 people per
100,000, while the rate for white Americans is 166 per 100,000. An estimated 12%
of U.S. black males in their late twenties were incarcerated in 2005, as opposed to
1.7% of white males.
http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~tklumpp/docs/prejudice.pdf

I guess, where we differ, is that I object to the government deciding what I do with my recreational time. If, while under the influence, I commit a crime, I should be punished. And, yes, there is a correlation between alcohol consumption and committing crimes. However, the vast majority of people who drink don't beat their wives or rob or rape.

When you start dictating how people spend their free time because of the potential harm to society you start going down a slippery slope. I'd prefer to punish people who act irresponsibly - put the burden on the individual rather than the activity.

Tettleton, you completely ignored everything I wrote. It's hard to claim that all law enforcement personnel, all local governments, all judges, all lawyers, and all juries are racist. There's context involved which you are ignoring.

50% of homicide victims are black. True or false? Is pointing that out racism? Blacks earn less than whites on average. Is pointing that out racism?

In your libertarian utopia minority populations would be victimized more often, would have greater disparity in income with whites, and we wouldn't have any mechanism to address it because any funding of social spending would be eliminated.

"However, the vast majority of people who drink don't beat their wives or rob or rape."

And perhaps most people who speed don't crash into other people. Perhaps many people who share dirty needles don't get AIDs. Perhaps many people who smoke 2 packs a day don't get lung cancer. But communities have a right to regulate behavior or take precautionary measures that pose a high risk to others. Your individual choices aren't made in a vacuum, they have effects on everyone else.

Right, when people drive they assume the responsibility to not use the car to harm anyone else and there are consequences if they do. People can assume the same responsibilities when they have a drink.

Beyond that, as I've mentioned in other threads, I think the way that all drugs are vilified using the same argument is unfair; HIV only spreads by specific means and is not applicable to most drugs, the characteristics exhibited by drunks isn't the same as the characteristics exhibited by someone on other drugs and so on.