It seems like many vice laws are established on a county by county basis. For example, most counties have alcohol for sale, but there still are dry counties. Likewise, gambling was legal many places in Nevada for years, then gradually other areas allowed gambling because morals shifted - and they wanted the revenue. Even prostitution is not, apparently, covered by federal law - it is legal in some counties in Nevada as well.
I think drug laws should follow this pattern. Most places want drugs illegal, and drug use would be prosecuted, just as prostitution is. However economically deprived areas could derive revenue (should they choose) by legalizing certain drugs. People would travel to these areas to use drugs, spending their money and supporting hotels, restaurants etc.-- bungston, Sep 05 2003 Federal vs. State, County, City Drug Laws http://www.bayarea....s/local/6644444.htmSadly, when it comes to drugs America has traveled far from the concept of the "land of the free". [Worldgineer, Oct 05 2004, last modified Oct 06 2004] The American gov'mint ain't only anti-drug, but viciously so. If Nancy Reagan can, through federal funds, bully the states into the 21 year min for drinking, counties and states can liberalize all they want and it will hardly mean a thing.
Face it Americans, the US is no longer a federal republic, but a unitary one--like France. If you're, for example, a Californian, you aren't rule as much by Sacramento, as you are by DC. A lot of this was settled in the early 1860's.
Worse than that, other countries aren't as free to strike out on their own. The US attempts to bully UK into banning "cocaine reefer" used to treat addicts, and is probably turning a few screws on the Netherlands and Switzerland.
Nor is the criminalization of millions and the imprisonment of a few million likely to change things. The abilities of these people wasted, as well as for the tax-fed prison industry, can continue. Indeed, the prison industry can float some kickbacks to the politicians. After all, who will oppose them? Liberals? Libertarians? The powers that be have contempt for them and the flag wavers are too stupid to dwell on these matters.
As for prostitution, with the disneyfication of Nevada, it might be outlawed as well. All that might be needed is for some "expose" done by Fox or Crappy News Network.-- Great Satan, Sep 05 2003 The US is a big place and it should be possible to allow a corner for every vice there is (As long as no innocent bystanders get are dragged there and hurt, which excludes some forms of prostitution). I'm all for it.
Don't sell drugs.The church hates competition.-- kbecker, Sep 05 2003 Oh yeah. Drug addicts are famous for spending their money to support hotels, restaurants, etc., and for not hurting innocent bystanders, aren't they?-- beauxeault, Sep 05 2003 Agreed kbecker. It should be allowed, but I won't be holding my breath. The feds think nothing of wasting millions of man-years of the citizenry. They think nothing of throwing millions of humans into cages in the drug war. If DEA agents were alive 500 years ago, I'm sure many would be torturing heretics. The DEA is an evil, evil, agency.
You got it right beauxeault. Much of those industries you cite are partially founded on smokers and drinkers. As for hurting people, c'mon. They's good ol' boys. They're budmen. They love their JD. Stone Cold Steve Austin loves to swim in beer--but no tokes. Uh uh. That'd be irresponsible.-- Great Satan, Sep 05 2003 [beaux] The only drug I have encountered so far that frequently makes people violent is alcohol. The other drugs made the user either happy or sleepy. There were exceptions, but not many. Except for drunks not a single drug user I know was prosecuted for anything they did under the influence of a drug. They were all prosecuted for using a drug. Also, bungston's idea was to leave it to the locals to decide. That should leave a lot of areas drug free or with restrictions "Don't drug and drive."-- kbecker, Sep 05 2003 So happy and sleepy they steal and murder to feed their habit.
"But if drugs were legal, they'd be cheap!"
First, prove to me that recreational drugs could be made and supplied so inexpensively that the addict would not have to have an income to buy them.
Second, even drug addicts who don't mug and murder still destroy relationships with loved ones and fail to meet their responsibilities to children and others. And even those with no family and no responsibility end up needing state care when the drug destroys their ability to maintain themselves.
The idea that drug abuse victimizes only the abuser is one that employs as much denial as the drug abuser does.-- beauxeault, Sep 06 2003 I'm pretty sure every country in the world has a drug "problem" to some extent, as in a large number of addicts. I think the crime involved is what people generally characterize as the "problem". Some countries have just arranged their laws to minimize the crime and keep it under control better than others. Just the fact that people even need to use drugs indicates that there is a problem with society. Happy people don't need drugs.-- DeathNinja, Sep 06 2003 just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's an "amerocentric rant" [ub]. this could well be applied to other countries as well.-- superman9k, Feb 15 2004 [beauxault], tobacco costs about 20 cents to a dollar an ounce, while marijuana (one of the cheaper illegal drugs) has often been valued at $40-$400 an ounce. There isn't anything that different about how they're made; they're both weeds that are picked, dried and eventually rolled into paper. The only difference (price-wise) is the money that has to fund the grower, the smuggler, the whole damn cartel, the bribes, the wholesale, the street-corner retail, the dude who drives all the way to the next town to get it, etc, prices all caused by criminalization.-- disbomber, Apr 16 2005 random, halfbakery