<p>
</p>
<p>I really disagree with this. I understand that drug related shootings do happen because of addicted users, but I’d wager that a significantly higher amount of drug related crimes are a result of illegality. Where there’s demand, gangs are going to provide the drugs, and conflicts over supply and geographic areas and whatnot are going to spur more violence. Do you really think that the Mexican border would be nearly as violent if drug cartels were driven out of business?</p>
<p>I also take issue with your very last statement. “You’re addicted forever.” People are going to do drugs, legal or not. We should focus on prevention, obviously, but by keeping drugs illegal (or at least criminalized) we marginalize users and brush the problem of addiction aside. In Canada we have one safe injection site for heroin users in Vancouver, and the area has cleaned up significantly (still not that great) and a significantly higher number of users in the area are getting help as a result. </p>
<p>Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001 and it’s been a huge success. [url=<a href=“http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html]link[/url”>http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html]link[/url</a>]</p>
<p>Drugs can do terrible things to people, but I don’t think that it’s my place to pass judgment or to restrict them from that choice. When there’s a social harm as a result of their decision, making it illegal doesn’t make that harm disappear and potentially exacerbates the issue. As morally repulsive as drug use might seem, how can Americans justify the difference in punishments observed between crack and cocaine users? How devastating have those differences been in some lower income minority neighborhoods and what are the ultimate repercussions there?</p>
<p>I think the real question should be how we address the social harm that drugs and addiction cause if we just throw people in prison, and then, how do we address the social harm as a result of incarceration?</p>