United States of N America

[V]

Could we ever imagine a United States of North America; or, with less imagination required perhaps, a union of the three north American nations similar to the EU, in which the people of each of the nations would be free to choose where they live, and free to seek work in any of the three?

Europe faced issues of dissimilarity of culture, political life, law enforcement and languages such that many would have said a European Union was unimaginable, but it was done, over time, as the pain of adjustment was met and dealt with. I submit we three nations have more in common with each other, or at least as much in common with each other, as those nations had.

There was, and still is, great disparity in economic power between the members of the EU, and this creates some tensions, but people with a grand vision saw the possibilities in that project, and thought it worth the attempt.

There are provisions of NAFTA suggesting the authors had a broader vision for the future of economic and social relations between the three countries. Now, the U.S. is struggling with two wars and the aftermath of a crushing financial collapse, but if the country manages to dig out and even begin to prosper again, this could be a subject for further consideration.

[gabesz]

It will never happen.

[Steve]

Cant see it myself. Not even Canada and the US, let alone Mexico.

The EU has not made things better in the UK, that's for sure.

[V]

The EU has not made things better in the UK, that's for sure.

Steve, are there some ways in which belonging to the EU has made things worse in England? (You're a little closer to that question than I am: there are at least another half dozen posters here from the UK who may also have something to add, along the way.)

Unions of such diverse people as has been done in Europe rarely occur except by force of arms! I consider it remarkable that is was done at all, and a tribute to those who imagined that it could be done and had the skills necessary to persuade others that it ought to be done. To me it represented, as much as anything, a way to prevent future inter-European, armed conflict. We practically can't imagine a war between these countries, now, which is a far cry from the state of things in my parents' time.

Besides the free movement of goods and services between the member countries, the main advantage seems to me to be that it allows those who participate to realize all the human possibility that their individual nature permits, and this has a value that can't be measured, directly, as a rise in GDP, for example, could be.

I've never met two peoples more alike and mutually compatible than Americans and Canadians, though their political systems are quite different, with that of the U.S. having been conceived by the great minds of the time (and perhaps the only time in our history when the greatest minds and talents available were attempting to govern the country- something that has not often been the case since), while that of Canada was the product of a very long, political process which began at least as far back as the Magna Carta, and was inherited, rather than conceived of whole cloth. But, I'm not proposing that the governments be merged, anymore than that has been the case in Europe- just that the barriers to the movement of people, goods and services be eliminated, and the privilege of choosing where to live and what work to pursue be extended to all lawfully within the territory of any of the three countries.

Steve, I have to say that you got me to thinking about this, and related subjects, by expressing concern on another thread that those who practice Islam were displacing those of a more familiar culture in the UK, and other European countries as a result of immigration policies which allow many from the former colonies- created during a darker period of history, in which many European nations were carving up the world- to immigrate. Laws can be changed to stop this flow, because it's the law that gives permission, in these cases. Just as in the U.S., a discussion could be opened to reconsider existing law that may unnecessarily exacerbate the problem, if it's seen to be a problem.

As for a union which includes Mexico, these people bring with them both a religion and a culture that is not so unfamiliar to us in the north. The border states of Texas, N.M., Arizona and California all have very large Hispanic populations, and they have blended without a great deal of difficulty over the decades I've lived to observe it. I lived eleven years in El Paso, where 80% of the professional people, and a like percentage of the rest had Hispanic surnames, and also in Las Cruces, N.M., and San Antonio, Texas, so the notion of having "Mexicans" around doesn't stir anything in me. I can remember visiting bus stations in Dallas and seeing the Mexican farm workers getting ready to move on: what struck me was how clean and neat they were, with jeans pressed, expressing some pride of appearance that I admired. My impression of Mexicans was that those I knew were not so different from others I lived and associated with. My years in Asia gave me a frame of reference which made it even more clear to me how much we were alike, rather than different.

Control of organized crime is never complete, as the U.S. knows, and Mexico is now engaged in a struggle to do just that with its drug cartels.

Canada has managed to govern itself relatively successfully over the last decade or so. But the U.S. is now struggling to overcome the bad luck and bad decisions of the last decade which have left the country (relatively) impoverished, practically all its military resources deployed in two theaters, and its economic development set back by more than a decade*. When both Mexico and the U.S. have overcome their problems, a union such as we're discussing could become a possibility.
_______________________
*[Many would argue that the U.S. has yet to show signs of an economic turnaround: it is now four years since the housing market began its decent, sucking the life out of an economy on the adrenalin of two wars, the largest tax cut in history, and free and easy credit at all levels, most especially in the housing market. Any and all of these can be viewed as errors by the leadership which either allowed them to happen; actively created the conditions to cause them to happen; or, as in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, ordered them to happen.]

[4biddenpleasrs]

Never say never.

About 15 years ago I watched a theoretical documentary stile film that talked about the future of the global economy.

I know .. gripping stuff. *L*

But in the end it predicted that there would end up being 3 main global mergers where countries would fall under 1 currency but still be countries unto themselves. The EU was first (people said that would never happen). Asia was next if I remember right. And, North America was the third. After the EU and Asia it was impossible for us to not merge our dollars.

I'm not saying it would be a good thing... I really don't know. But anything is possible.

[rdubnpk]

rdubnpk
One thing that would have to happen is that the US would have to "grow up". We are no longer the only super power in the world and still continue with the attitude that we are. We have failed to address problems that continue to plague us. A recent discussion on globilization pointed out that we are mired in a mind set that keeps us falling farther and farther behind. Most of the jobs and manfacturing that have been lost are to other countries who either povided cheaper labor or updated their manufacturing technology while ours stagnated. Those jobs aren't coming back. The US needs to figure out the things we are good at and can be good at in the future and lead the world in those areas or continue to be left behind.
We need to realize that social issues like "the war on drugs" are losing propositions. It is costing millions of dollars (in jail facilities alone) and thousands of lives yearly. Legalization would make the dealers moot and provide a huge source of taxable income, not to mention solve a huge problem in Mexico where the dealers are, it seems, in control of some parts of that country. Once again religion gets in the way of something that makes total sense. We learned nothing from prohibition.
I think the question would be why would Canada and Mexico want to align themselves with fading star who still acts like they are the headliner and refuses to admit they are no longer the star they once were??

[4biddenpleasrs]

Originally Posted by rdubnpk

rdubnpk
One thing that would have to happen is that the US would have to "grow up". We are no longer the only super power in the world and still continue with the attitude that we are. We have failed to address problems that continue to plague us. A recent discussion on globilization pointed out that we are mired in a mind set that keeps us falling farther and farther behind. Most of the jobs and manfacturing that have been lost are to other countries who either povided cheaper labor or updated their manufacturing technology while ours stagnated. Those jobs aren't coming back. The US needs to figure out the things we are good at and can be good at in the future and lead the world in those areas or continue to be left behind.
We need to realize that social issues like "the war on drugs" are losing propositions. It is costing millions of dollars (in jail facilities alone) and thousands of lives yearly. Legalization would make the dealers moot and provide a huge source of taxable income, not to mention solve a huge problem in Mexico where the dealers are, it seems, in control of some parts of that country. Once again religion gets in the way of something that makes total sense. We learned nothing from prohibition.
I think the question would be why would Canada and Mexico want to align themselves with fading star who still acts like they are the headliner and refuses to admit they are no longer the star they once were??

Oh... here goes the can of worms... *L*

Welcome to the end result of Unions having too much power and not enough foresight.

Jobs in the US and Canada leave the country because most unions have fooled their members into believing that they deserve more and more over the years. An auto worker (at least in Canada) makes amazing money for a job that requires very little skill. Benefits, overtime, bonuses, great vacation, etc... all very costly. So when the company, who's in business to make money, gets a chance to lower those costs by moving production to another country... surprise surprise.

They've shown their greed out weighs any logic too. At the beginning of the recession before the bailouts the CAW here refused to make any concessions even though the automakers said they were ready to go under. Even after the UAW made concessions they refused.

I won't be surprised when plants start moving in the next 10 years.

As for the drugs.. that's just not going to work. You don't legalize murder just because you can't stop all the murders. Drugs, with the exception of maybe pot, are more destructive on a society that guns are. If you're just talking about pot then I'd suggest that you won't see it legalized until they can create a roadside test.

Basically if the police can't test you for it they're not going to make it legal.

Lastly,

Don't count out the US as a power just yet. With all the internal strife that's going on they have the ability to help the world and destroy it. Militarily they are more powerful than any other nation. Canada is able to limit the size of our military because the US is beside us. Canada's security is important to the US and vice versa. 9/11 showed us that.

Financially they are our largest trading partner. People wise, we have families living on both sides of the boarder. Canadians marry Americans... Americans marry Canadians.

We are stuck together whether we like it or not.

Now ask me if I'd like to see one currency..... no way.. I love my monopoly money *L*

[rdubnpk]

rdubnpk
Drugs need to be legalized so that the CAN BE CONTROLLED. The war on drugs is a losing battle and the statistics prove it. We can't jail half the black population and not go under from the prison costs alone.

[4biddenpleasrs]

*L*... statistics can be made to say anything.

If stats said that drinking and driving was on the rise again and couldn't be stopped should we allow it?

Just because it's hard to control doesn't mean you should just give up and legalize it. *L*

Talk to anyone who's family has been destroyed by an addict and they'll tell you otherwise.

[Life_N_Cancun]

Here's a stat for you... The United States has less than 5% of the world's population and 23.4% of the world's prison population. (Source) and every day politicians outlaw more things and increase prison sentences to be "tough on crime"... and get reelected... just an FYI for anyone falling for that crap... IT AIN'T WORKIN! it is however destroying countless families/lives, creating more violent criminals, and costing us a bloody fortune....


As for the unification of N. America.. I don't see it happening anytime soon, there are too many issues that would need to be worked out... IMHO the EU was formed out of necessity... the smaller European countries needed a unified voice to be competitive in the "new" global economy. Of'course now when things are difficult the better off countries feel like they are getting the bad end of the deal, but that's part of the responsibility you take on when you join into any union.

[V]

So far as I can remember, Life, you and I are the only ones who've ever taken up this issue on this forum.

The "war on drugs" is just one more of the seemingly dead end policies adopted by the U.S., and foisted on the rest of the world, in my lifetime.

The more than one million in U.S. prisons, many of whom did little more than facilitate their countrymen getting high, is testimony to the ineffectiveness of this approach. Why we can't try something new, is a mystery to me.

And, "4", I can imagine the pain of a family member being involved in the drug trade, or addicted, but surely medical solutions, even when they involve involuntary commitments, are preferable to penal.
____________________

We had a big ol' "religion" thread on this forum, but my gripe with religion is that they all seem to concern themselves with the trivial sins- getting high, getting laid, pale in comparison to the sin involved in dropping bombs on innocent people, whether those bombs are carried in a suicide vest or dropped from a B-52.

[poko]

In the US we can't even get along with ourselves. Until we find a way to deal with the I got mine screw everyone else factor it wont happen.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by V

Steve, are there some ways in which belonging to the EU has made things worse in England? (You're a little closer to that question than I am: there are at least another half dozen posters here from the UK who may also have something to add, along the way.)

Well, I'm not in the best position to say as we've lived in Mexico since 2004 although we do go back annually for a month and I keep a close eye on the news and contact with friends and family.

The main disadvantage as I see it, is loss of national identity due to immigration. Firstly, we have lots of non EU asylum seekers (most of whom travel through several safe countries to arrive there). Unlike the US we dont detain asylum seekers and many just drift off into society.

Add to that we also now have unrestricted legal migration from EU countries - this is great that it's easier for a high skilled EU worker to come over and compete in the job market and great for Brits to be able to do same there, although our general distaste for learning another language and high skilled Euros propensity to learn English means the balance isnt anywhere near equal.

But of course what happens is that it's the poorer countries such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Balkans (and likely soon to be Turkey who have a population of 73 million compared to the UK at 61 million) who form the bulk of EU immigration and that many have little to offer the job market. Many arrive without a bean to their name and end up being supported (entitlement to benefits, healthcare, schooling) rather than contributing. You wont find many Brits moving to Lithuania for the benefits and healthcare. There are other EU immigrants who are very hard working also. Of those that are skilled the building trade comes to mind - with the Polish willing to do the same for less but often to a much poorer standard which has resulted in many long established UK businesses going to the wall. Sadly, many sleep 4 to a room and their wages go straight back home to their family. As a father of two I cant say I wouldnt do the same if I were in their position, so I cant really blame them.

And we have people like myself who have moved abroad, last year 36,000 people left the UK to permanently reside elsewhere, notably Spain and France (this was much lower than the previous year of 90,000 due to the weak pound vs Euro). A small, but not insignificant, figure given the size of our population and that nearly all of those who leave are healthy contributors not healthy recipients.

Net result is a very changing face of the UK as experienced at ground level. Whole towns have changed from being predominantly English to being predominantly populated by people from another EU country. The UK is very small both in size and population and it simply cant take this influx of people both EU and more worryingly non EU without changing into a very different place. Did you know currently the most popular name for boys in London is that fine traditional English name Mohammed? The population of London is 8 million, 16% of the whole of England. Given that Muslims have a much higher birth rate than 'indigenous' English it doesnt take a calculator to work out the way it's going.

Unlike say the US and Canada, Britain has little in common with the rest of the EU even the first nation countries like Germany and France we are still very different. Throw into the mix the likes of Poland, Latvia and others - well we are like chalk and cheese.

While we're supporting migrants to the UK with benefits helathcare and schooling (even free driving lessons in some cases -too many accidents because we drive on the left and other countries dont), we are also supporting other EU nationals in their own countries. For example outdated inefficient farming practices in many other EU countries are supported by huge subsidies the governments (and ultimately the taxpayer) of the 1st world countries such as the UK pay.

Travel has opened up, there are now a plethora of budget airlines flying to outlying EU countries that weren't previously available. I remember in my 20's, stag parties (Batchelor parties) were at places like Blackpool and Torquay in the UK, now they're in Riga and Prague. The Brits have always travelled, not needing a passport to do so now wont change things much, but I'd bet the tourism effect has been mainly one way - yet more money leaving the country.

I see the benefits of a diverse country but believe that those choosing to live in a new country should integrate to that country's way of life and not seek to impose their own. I believe that they should also have a positive contribution to give to make that country better in whatever way they can, however small that may be, and not see it as little more than a free ATM machine. As a citizen of a very different country myself I have tried to do both those things, and I wish those that choose to live in the UK would do that too. But there are not enough who do.

[4biddenpleasrs]

Originally Posted by Life_N_Cancun

Here's a stat for you... The United States has less than 5% of the world's population and 23.4% of the world's prison population. (Source) and every day politicians outlaw more things and increase prison sentences to be "tough on crime"... and get reelected... just an FYI for anyone falling for that crap... IT AIN'T WORKIN! it is however destroying countless families/lives, creating more violent criminals, and costing us a bloody fortune....

IMHO what isn't working is the education and job creation systems. There is a pretty direct line between criminal activity and a lack of education.

But even with an education if there are no jobs to be had then criminal activity increases.

Crime must be punished but jails alone will not deter crime.

[Life_N_Cancun]

Originally Posted by 4biddenpleasrs

IMHO what isn't working is the education and job creation systems. There is a pretty direct line between criminal activity and a lack of education.

But even with an education if there are no jobs to be had then criminal activity increases.

Crime must be punished but jails alone will not deter crime.

I'd say incarcerating parents and breaking up families over what other "civilized" countries would consider trivial offenses, so that children grow up in broken homes without fathers and/or mothers is where the direct line is.

I'm not a fan of abusing drugs of any sort, including the one I occasionally partake in (alcohol), but in my lifetime the damage I've witnessed caused by drugs hasn't been from the drugs themselves, but the damage the US legal system does. I speak from the experience of having seen family and friends rammed through that system and from what I understand a huge majority of the US's massive prison population is for drug possession related offenses. (ie: the guy with a truck load of booze and cigarettes has no problems, but the guy with a personal use "baggie" goes to jail, not treatment, jail, meanwhile the wife and kids suffer and the otherwise law abiding, tax-paying, non-drinking, church going, "criminal" will be lucky to ever get back on his feet. )

The drug laws are stupid, politically motivated, knee jerk reaction idiocy.. its as simple as that... keep them illegal if you want, but putting users in prison instead of treatment is about the dumbest, most destructive, most counter-productive, and most expensive thing you could possibly do... You could make illegal drug use a capitol offense punishable by death.. the addicts wont care! I used to laugh at the idea of legalizing drugs, but now I think that's the only option that makes any sense.. there won't be any "explosion" in use after its legal because everyone already does the crap... just regulate it like liquor and be done with it.. the idiots will still be idiots no matter what, but at least the violent criminal elements will be greatly reduced and resources can go towards better education and treatment for those that want it instead.

/rant

[4biddenpleasrs]

Originally Posted by Life_N_Cancun

I'd say incarcerating parents and breaking up families over what other "civilized" countries would consider trivial offenses, so that children grow up in broken homes without fathers and/or mothers is where the direct line is.

I'm not a fan of abusing drugs of any sort, including the one I occasionally partake in (alcohol), but in my lifetime the damage I've witnessed caused by drugs hasn't been from the drugs themselves, but the damage the US legal system does. I speak from the experience of having seen family and friends rammed through that system and from what I understand a huge majority of the US's massive prison population is for drug possession related offenses. (ie: the guy with a truck load of booze and cigarettes has no problems, but the guy with a personal use "baggie" goes to jail, not treatment, jail, meanwhile the wife and kids suffer and the otherwise law abiding, tax-paying, non-drinking, church going, "criminal" will be lucky to ever get back on his feet. )

The drug laws are stupid, politically motivated, knee jerk reaction idiocy.. its as simple as that... keep them illegal if you want, but putting users in prison instead of treatment is about the dumbest, most destructive, most counter-productive, and most expensive thing you could possibly do... You could make illegal drug use a capitol offense punishable by death.. the addicts wont care! I used to laugh at the idea of legalizing drugs, but now I think that's the only option that makes any sense.. there won't be any "explosion" in use after its legal because everyone already does the crap... just regulate it like liquor and be done with it.. the idiots will still be idiots no matter what, but at least the violent criminal elements will be greatly reduced and resources can go towards better education and treatment for those that want it instead.

/rant

I think you're missing the point. Just because everyone is going to do it is no reason to make something legal.

If you're not going to respect the rule of law then you're going to go to jail. It's as simple as that.

Don't blame the system for the actions of people. That's what's wrong with society today. no one want's to take responsibility for their own actions... it's always someone else's fault. And I disagree with the whole "children growing up in broken homes" is bad thing....

Biology does not make a parent. A child can grow up perfectly normal when raised by stable people. It doesn't matter if they're biologically the parents or even if it's a mother and father. There are tons of cases of people growing up without one parent or another and are fine. Your life is what you make of it.

[4biddenpleasrs]

but I'm realizing now that we've hijacked this thread.... it's about a North American Union *L*

[Life_N_Cancun]

Originally Posted by 4biddenpleasrs

I think you're missing the point. Just because everyone is going to do it is no reason to make something legal.

If you're not going to respect the rule of law then you're going to go to jail. It's as simple as that.

My point is we've tried that approach and it's made things far worse... it's tricky to find balance between protecting the general public and disrupting society and IMHO the current system in the US is disrupting and feeding a downward cycle. Add to that, "judges" can't judge because of "mandatory minimums" and you've got the recipes for a police state. I look at the numbers of people locked up in the US and I'm alarmed... are we really THAT bad or are the laws and punishments out of control....?

[Life_N_Cancun]

Originally Posted by 4biddenpleasrs

but I'm realizing now that we've hijacked this thread.... it's about a North American Union *L*

Well we're discussing how screwed up the US is and why it wouldn't work to join a union.. that and I don't think there has ever been a thread here that hasn't gone astray.

[4biddenpleasrs]

*L*

anyway... our economies in N America are so intertwined that we're not far from a union anyway. The only thing that's really missing is 1 currency and common ID cards.

[rdubnpk]

Originally Posted by Life_N_Cancun

My point is we've tried that approach and it's made things far worse... it's tricky to find balance between protecting the general public and disrupting society and IMHO the current system in the US is disrupting and feeding a downward cycle. Add to that, "judges" can't judge because of "mandatory minimums" and you've got the recipes for a police state. I look at the numbers of people locked up in the US and I'm alarmed... are we really THAT bad or are the laws and punishments out of control....?

rdubnpk
More importantly, it is simply NOT WORKING. It doesn't matter how many people are put in jail, the flow of drugs hasn't stopped, period. How does it, therefore, make any sense to keep jailing people when the problem isn't in any way being solved?

[Life_N_Cancun]

Originally Posted by 4biddenpleasrs

*L*

anyway... our economies in N America are so intertwined that we're not far from a union anyway. The only thing that's really missing is 1 currency and common ID cards.

The economies are intertwined.. at least in the sense that they all depend on money going out of the US.... either by trade or remittances. The idea of a union suggests free travel between union members but I think we all know how most American's would feel about unrestricted travel on the Southern border. So I just don't see it happening. The US and (British) Canada could probably do it today without too much fuss but that's as far as I can see it going...

[4biddenpleasrs]

Originally Posted by rdubnpk

rdubnpk
More importantly, it is simply NOT WORKING. It doesn't matter how many people are put in jail, the flow of drugs hasn't stopped, period. How does it, therefore, make any sense to keep jailing people when the problem isn't in any way being solved?

Like I said above.. do you then stop jailing people for murder because jail hasn't stopped murderers? No. Jail is not there to be a deterrent. It's there to be a punishment and hopefully a rehabilitation center.

Inmates should be receiving an education up to highschool graduate and learning some form of trade.

[4biddenpleasrs]

Originally Posted by Life_N_Cancun

The economies are intertwined.. at least in the sense that they all depend on money going out of the US.... either by trade or remittances. The idea of a union suggests free travel between union members but I think we all know how most American's would feel about unrestricted travel on the Southern border. So I just don't see it happening. The US and (British) Canada could probably do it today without too much fuss but that's as far as I can see it going...

I think if there was the choice between unrestricted travel in N America or the USA going bankrupt I'm sure they'd pick the former choice.

[Life_N_Cancun]

Originally Posted by 4biddenpleasrs

Like I said above.. do you then stop jailing people for murder because jail hasn't stopped murderers? No.

In my mind there is a pretty noticeable difference between cold blooded murder and smoking a joint... there has to be some common sense involved.. and that's lacking in many US courts where murderers sometimes get less jail time than the guy who was growing a marijuana plant or had the 17 and 3/4 years old girlfriend.

Originally Posted by 4biddenpleasrs

Jail is not there to be a deterrent. It's there to be a punishment and hopefully a rehabilitation center.

I thought they were there to separate people from the rest of society...

Originally Posted by 4biddenpleasrs

Inmates should be receiving an education up to highschool graduate and learning some form of trade.

Great in theory... but seeing as how the prisons are bursting at the seems its a bit hard to actually do anything more than warehouse people.

[4biddenpleasrs]

If you're only talking about marijuana then lets be realistic here. What's the difference between being caught drinking and driving and being caught stoned and driving?

The police have a test for drinking and driving. Until they can test it they won't make it legal. It's that simple.





If they can send robots to Mars I'm sure they can figure out how to educate the prison population. It just takes someone who has the power to change things and wants to.

People have done it. Maybe not in a prison but it's been done. Inner city crap holes turned around through schooling. Joe Clark comes to mind.

[Franco27]

Originally Posted by Steve

Cant see it myself. Not even Canada and the US, let alone Mexico.

The EU has not made things better in the UK, that's for sure.

certainly didn't for the helpless bannana ....

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | 'Bendy bananas' win UK reprieve

[V]

Keeping impaired people from getting behind the wheel is a different issue from whether we should try a different approach to dealing with human beings desire to get high, using whatever means is available. You can criminalize the one, without applying criminal sanctions to the other.

To get beyond this issue, I'd rewrite the law to make it a crime to drive with demonstrable physical or mental impairment, from any cause, sufficient to prevent one from being a safe operator. Proof comes in many forms: police have long used their own personal observations, videotapes and such things as blood tests to establish- directly or indirectly- this level of impairment.

The war on drugs having been a miserable failure, and in addition to resulting in a huge waste of human talent, such as it may be, from hundreds of thousands being incarcerated, it has directly resulted in the establishment, worldwide, of hugely powerful drug mafias who daily exert their negative influences on society, while whatever evils drug use itself may visit on us remain.

It's time to try a completely different approach, I'd say.

[Life_N_Cancun]

Originally Posted by 4biddenpleasrs

If you're only talking about marijuana then lets be realistic here. What's the difference between being caught drinking and driving and being caught stoned and driving?

EXACTLY my point.. how can some mind altering drugs be perfectly legal when they cause countless deaths and injuries every minute of every day, while others are forbidden... one is "worse" than the other you might say... ok... I submit to you that guy "A" who just downed 8 beers is more of a danger and nuisance than guy "B" who took one dose of "whathaveyou"... Guy "A" gets stopped by the police while walking and gets a ride home or a few hours to sober up and then he's let go without charge. Guy "B" will be charged with a felony, loss his job, spend a several years in prison, spend every last dime he has to defend himself, be locked away from his wife and babies, and be forever stained as a convict when he is finally released from the ordeal... likely exiting the prison more violent and less able to benefit society than when he went in... and even then he'll be put on probation/parole so that if he so much as jaywalks he'll risk going back to prison.... does that make sense to you and seem like it's for the betterment of society?

Originally Posted by 4biddenpleasrs

The police have a test for drinking and driving. Until they can test it they won't make it legal. It's that simple.

Police everywhere (except maybe Mexico) know how to spot altered people.. and there are blood, breath, urine, and skin moisture tests for all sorts of things that have quick results, so I don't buy that argument.

Let's do a pro/con of legalizing them today in the US...

Cons:
Possible spike in use.. (IMHO not likely, those who want to do them are already doing them and being illegal must not have much deterrent effect.. if anything being illicit makes them more exciting and desirable)

Possible increase in drug use related death... (see above, I doubt you'll see noticeable increases in real world numbers, public acknowledgment of use may go up but I doubt actual numbers will...I'd bet the opposite 10 years post legalization, with large reductions in use and abuse)

Kids will do them... (ahemm.. like they don't already?)

Add your other cons.. I'm having a hard time seeing them right now....

Pros:

Overnight elimination of drug production, transport, and distribution related violence and crime.

Police free to go after other criminals... (you know... the ones who rob, rape, and murder...)

MASSIVE reduction in incarcerated people in the US... (just think of all the money we'll save and add all those people back to the tax paying ranks)

Regulated and taxed drugs... (prevent tainted supplies and generate much needed tax income, which in turn can be used to treat addiction and teach abuse prevention)

Reduction of violence in middleman and supplier countries... (like Mexico...)

I'm sure there are others but I can't think of them this early...

All that said... do I think it will happen?.. NO, no I don't.. I think the US will keep going until every man, woman, and child are incarcerated because the country is run by corrupt, money hungry, idiots and the public at large are sheep too brainwashed and ignorant to realize what's going on... being "on the outside" has really changed me, and I realize now how brainwashed people really are by the media and politicians in the US.

[V]

Life, though it makes perfect sense to me to try a new approach, I seldom meet anyone who agrees.

My opinion is the level of control would have to be just as strong as it is now, but with the criminal sanctions removed from certain acts which are now crimes: the "state" would be highly involved in regulating the conditions under which drugs would be made available, and to whom, while removing the incentives, insofar as possible, to turn to non state sanctioned alternatives.

The exact details would be complex, but bright people could work it out, given the freedom and the means to do so.