I do not disagree entirely but I do think that decriminalization might solve many issues but i am certain many more would also crop up from the abolishment of drugs laws too.

Very interesting comment though.

From the dawn of man, our species has sought ways to change consciousness at certain times, for example, after the hunt or during celebrations. The desire to do that, that is bring about a pleasant level of consciousness, free of nervous anxiety that comes with the survival territory, is not of itself indicative of an emotional problem.

What we have done in society, is take very normal sought after releases from tension, and “redefined” them as problems in many cases.

This does not mean that there aren’t drug abusers who have problems. As a matter of fact, prior to 1930, it was quite common for doctors to prescribe opiates for many anxiety related conditions, especially depression.

Drugs like MAO inhibitors are widely known to be ineffective in 30% of patients suffering from depression. In those cases, physicians in the US were authorized, prior to our enlightenment, to prescribe the opiates, thereby allowing persons so afflicted to live normal productive lives.

Since our enlightenment however, many societies have taken away the freedom of people to seek these kinds of legitimate remedies.

We have, unfortunately, through the power of definition, criminalized or otherwise withdrawn support for people who have conditions unrelated to mental disorders. (There is the difference between a yellow lab and a Chiwawa.)

I agree there are conditions in which drugs are destructive, and, in those cases, treatment needs to be sought. However, we need to be careful when we use statistics like 40% to describe “emotional” problems.

A large percentage of “emotional” problems are natural reactions to conditions in society that actually militate against the way our bodies are set up naturally.

With the power to redefine what a problem looks like, we have shifted the focus of the real problem from bad laws to bad people. That is one of the great tragedies of the 20th and now the 21st century.

If we want to prevent 10,000 murders per year in the US, change our drug laws. If we want to save an additional 30,000 accident victims per year, change our drug laws. (People who drink alcohol at celebrations want to drive and fight. People who smoke marijuana at celebrations want to go to sleep.)

If we want to prevent 100,000 burglaries per year, change our drug laws. If drugs were available at relatively reasonable prices, according to the late Milton Freidman, a Nobel Prize winner, the magnitude of our property violations would be greatly reduced.

Also, with the taxes made available through the legitimate use of drugs, services such as are described here would be within the easy reach of the poor, since we could afford to redirect much of the money now used for drug enforcement to send people to the Canyon Rehab Center.

What we have done in society, is take a very normal sought after releases from tension, and “defined” them as problems in many many cases.

This does not mean that there aren’t drug abusers who have problems. As a matter of fact, prior to 1930, it was quite common for doctors to prescribe opiates for many anxiety related conditions, especially depression.

Drugs like MAO inhibitors are widely known to be ineffective in 30% of patients suffering from depression. In those cases, physicians in the US were authorized prior to our enlightenment to prescribe the opiates, thereby allowing the person so afflicted to live a normal productive life.

Since our enlightenment however, we have taken away the freedom of Americans to seek this kind of remedy.

Instead, we have, unfortunately, through the power of definition, criminalized and otherwise withdrawn support for people who have conditions in many cases unrelated to a mental disorder, but rather related to inherited predispositions to anxiety and depression having nothing to do with a disorder. (There is the difference between a yellow lab and a Chiwawa.)

So, yes, I agree there are conditions in which drugs are destructive, and in those cases, treatment needs to be sought. However, we need to be careful when we use statistics like 40% to describe “emotional” problems.

A large percentage of “emotional” problems are natural reactions to conditions in society that actually militate against the way our bodies are set up naturally.

With the power to redefine what a problem looks like, we have shifted the focus of a real problem from bad laws to bad people. That is one of the great tragedies of t20th century in America.

If we want to prevent 10,000 murders per year, change our drug laws. If we want to save an additional 30,000 accident victims per year, change our drug laws. People who drink alcohol at celebrations want to drive and fight. People who smoke marijuana at celebrations want to go to sleep.

If we want to prevent 100,000 burglaries per year, change our drug laws. If drugs were available at relatively reasonable prices, according to the late Milton Freidman, a Nobel Prize winner, the magnitude of our property violates would be greatly reduced.

Also, with the taxes made available through taxing the legitimate use of drugs, services such as are described here would be within the easy reach of the poor, since we could afford to redirect much of the money now used for enforcement to send people to the Canyon Rehab Center.