Drug War

Death in Juarez

The bloody consequences of America's pharmacological intolerance

|

A few weeks ago, I debated drug policy with Ron Brooks, president of the National Narcotics Officers Association, on John Stossel's Fox Business show. When Stossel asked him about the violence fostered by drug prohibition, Brooks replied, "Well, there certainly is some of that." Then he quickly moved on to another topic.

I thought of Brooks' blithe response as I read about last weekend's horrific violence in Mexico, which included the murders of three people tied to the U.S. consulate in Ciudad Juarez: a pregnant consular employee and her husband, both U.S. citizens, and the Mexican husband of another woman who worked at the consulate. All were shot dead in their cars shortly after leaving a birthday party with their children.

The motive for these attacks remains unclear, but Mexican police believe they were carried out by a gang linked to the Juarez drug cartel, which has been fighting the Sinaloa cartel for control of the city. The murders, which grabbed headlines in the U.S. and elicited outraged responses from the White House and the State Department, were just a small part of the bloody ordeal that our government is inflicting on Mexico by insisting that it stop drugs destined for American lungs, noses, and veins.

The same weekend that Lesley Enriquez, Arthur Redelf, and Jorge Alberto Salcido Ceniceros were killed in their cars as their children screamed in the back seat, nearly 50 people died in Mexico from violence related to the drug trade. In Ciudad Juarez, which is important to traffickers because it sits right across the border from El Paso, more than 2,000 people were killed last year, giving the city one of the world's highest homicide rates.

Since Mexican President Felipe Calderon launched a literal war against the country's drug cartels in December 2006, some 19,000 people have died. Mexican and American drug warriors are unfazed, saying the staggering death toll is a sign of their success.

"Mexico lives with the violent consequences of an American dilemma," writes former Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Castaneda. "It is because of American demand that Mexico is 'forced' to wage a war on drugs that otherwise it would not have to fight."

It is not simply American demand for drugs that creates this situation; it is our government's refusal to let legal businesses meet that demand. Just as it did during alcohol prohibition, that refusal creates a black market in which suppliers violently contend for territory instead of peacefully competing for customers.

"As long as criminalization, its hypocrisy, and serious discussions of the alternatives are banned from public discussion," says Castaneda, "U.S. drug policy will remain…a supply-side, foreign-policy, nickel-and-dime war waged beyond U.S. borders….The only conceivable alternative lies in a change in U.S. drug policy: not demand reduction, or supply interdiction, but decriminalization, harm reduction, adjusting laws to reality instead of uselessly attempting the opposite."

To address the violence, decriminalization has to encompass not just possession for personal use (a policy that Mexico and several U.S. states have adopted in limited ways) but production and distribution as well. During alcohol prohibition—when the U.S. homicide rate rose by 43 percent, peaking the year of repeal—there were no criminal penalties for drinking. Yet by making it illegal to manufacture and sell alcohol, the government invited the likes of Al Capone to vie for control of a lucrative black market, with predictably violent results. Once alcohol was legalized, the business was no longer run by criminals, and liquor suppliers stopped shooting at each other.

"We will continue to work with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and his government to break the power of the drug trafficking organizations that operate in Mexico and far too often target and kill the innocent," the White House declared after Saturday's murders in Ciudad Juarez. If the U.S. government were serious about breaking the power of the brutal gangs that profit from prohibition, it would rethink its war on drugs.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and a nationally syndicated columnist.

© Copyright 2010 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: Driven

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It is so sad to see what drugs do. We should all do our part to prevent this tragedy by quitting drugs.

    1. So because the government can’t get its head out of its a**, its the fault of non-violent users now? No, its the fault of the politicians, the law enforcement officials and the military/prison industrial complex who profit from this. The blood is on their hands and no one else’s.

      Thats like saying those who defied the silly prohibition laws were responsible for all the murders committed by Al Capone.

      1. In some ways yes, not directly but as a proximate cause since the murders would have stopped if people stopped drinking.

        1. Unreal, or maybe its the fault of the mommies and daddies of the drug lords who didnt love them enough, or hell maybe its rap music’s fault, or maybe its capitalism’s fault cuz you know that promotes greed and profit,

          1. Or maybe its the fault of the pretty girl who rejected the drug king when he was a nerdy teenager

        2. The murders would have stopped (and did) as soon as prohibition was ended.

          1. Yes, all murders, and the mob ceased to exist after ratification of the 21st Ammendment in 1933.

            1. Whew, you got us, the mob did not move on to other substances that were similarly prohibited, either.

        3. So when the law and reality collide, it’s reality that should change. I’ll get to work on that.

          1. Great new health plan:

            http://www.anncoulter.com/

        4. I thought you were kidding. You’re serious?

        5. I thought you were kidding. You’re serious?

      2. It’s always the fault of the politicians. It’s the reason why Canada has free Ontario health insurance and the U.S. does not.

  2. Whatever your individual opinion may be, nobody has the right to tell you what you can or can not put in your own body. As with sober behavior, actions that cause harm to others are criminal, the act of using drugs for recreational purposes is up to the individual, not a government. Freedom grants you the ability to fail if you so choose.

    1. The government, through the democratic process has determined that using drugs is a threat to society, so they most definitely do have the right to restrict them.

      1. You are so right…

        You left out illegal. Thats whats wrong with it.
        The majority of society has deemed they want it illegal. A small vocal minority wants it legal. Guess who wins?

        also…check your facts. Most of what you state is WRONG….

        Marijuana abuse is associated with many detrimental health effects. These effects can include frequent respiratory infections, impaired memory and learning, increased heart rate, anxiety, panic attacks and tolerance. Marijuana meets the criteria for an addictive drug and animal studies suggest marijuana causes physical dependence and some people report withdrawal symptoms.11

        Someone who smokes marijuana regularly may have many of the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers do, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illnesses, a heightened risk of lung infections, and a greater tendency toward obstructed airways. Cancer of the respiratory tract and lungs may also be promoted by marijuana smoke. Marijuana has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract because marijuana smoke contains 50 percent to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke.12

        Marijuana’s damage to short-term memory seems to occur because THC alters the way in which information is processed by the hippocampus, a brain area responsible for memory formation. In one study, researchers compared marijuana smoking and nonsmoking 12th-graders’ scores on standardized tests of verbal and mathematical skills. Although all of the students had scored equally well in 4th grade, those who were heavy marijuana smokers, i.e., those who used marijuana seven or more times per week, scored significantly lower in 12th grade than nonsmokers. Another study of 129 college students found that among heavy users of marijuana critical skills related to attention, memory, and learning were significantly impaired, even after they had not used the drug for at least 24 hours.13

        Of an estimated 106 million emergency department (ED) visits in the U.S. during 2004, the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) estimates that 1,997,993 were drug-related. DAWN data indicate that marijuana was involved in 215,665 ED visits.14

        DAWN also collects information on deaths involving drug abuse that were identified and submitted by 128 death investigation jurisdictions in 42 metropolitan areas across the United States. Cannabis ranked among the 10 most common drugs in 16 cities, including Detroit (74 deaths), Dallas (65), and Kansas City (63). Marijuana is very often reported in combination with other substances; in metropolitan areas that reported any marijuana in drug abuse deaths, an average of 79 percent of those deaths involved marijuana and at least one other substance.15

        1. Most marijuana consumed in the US is domestically grown these days. What’s that got to do with Mexico?

          1. Yeah but it’s a close call. The numbers roughly break down like this:

            Domestic production: 45%
            Mexican: 40%
            Canadian: 5%
            Everything Else: 10%

            Bottom line is that roughly 2/3 of the revenue these Mexican cartels bring in is from marijuana. Not chump change.

        2. Hahah, I’ll leave the big problems with your post alone and just point out the emergency room visit stuff. When you go to an emergency room, and the doctor asks if you’ve used any drugs, and you explain that you smoked a joint earlier in the day, bam: “marijuana-related” emergency room visit.

          All that says is that a certain percentage of people smoke pot. It’s about as dangerous as my morning cup of coffee.

        3. So anything that can be shown to be dangerous should be banned? Cars kill more people every year than all illegal drugs combined. By your logic, they should be banned. In fact, when you get in your car, you don’t just put yourself at risk, you put me at risk too, making them more ban-worthy.

        4. Lol Sarah, 44% is not a small minority. And 52% want it decriminalized. Also, every-time it comes up for a vote it wins by a landslide, so a lot of people who say they dont want the law to change arent really passionate about keeping it illegal, they just dont care one way or the other.

          Also,I dont believe any of those facts you cited. If Al Gore can make up crap about Global Warming and the Evangelical abstinence-only crowd can make up crap about condoms, STDs, and the alleged ‘healing’ of gay people, then why wouldnt another advocacy group make stuff up and exaggerate about this issue?

        5. Blah, blah, blah, statistics, measures that can read how you want the results to look like, thanks for those…my point is and remains that this is not your decision. People do bad things to themselves, they, smoke, drink, drive, eat poorly, watch violent TV, swear, etc… and the products that are available to do so are made because of demand. If enough people didn’t want any of these things, they wouldn’t have a market to be sold. There is an obvious market for dope, and no matter your opinion, people will engage in the use of it. To criminalize them is at best a force of your will onto them and at worst, tyranny.

        6. Using your logic, we should ban tobacco, and football, and hockey, and swimming in lakes, and riding bikes, and suntanning, and driving, and eating too much salt and fat and sugar, and driving, and farming, thats way dangerous.

          1. Bob,
            They are working on banning all that stuff. The idea is you go to work, pay your taxes, and keep your mouth shut. Damn statists.

        7. You, ma’am, are missing the point. In a free society, citizens are allowed to do WHATEVER they want so long as it does not directly harm others. If I want to shoot myself in the head, the government should have no right to stop me.

          Clearly you believe the government should act as a nanny — telling grown adults how they should act. You belong in the Soviet Union.

      2. A number of states have repealed the penalties for marijuana. Care to point to the part of the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to legislate on the matter? At least the alcohol prohibitionists had the decency to get an amendment authorizing Congress to legislate on the matter.

        1. Technically, the 10th Amendment covers this, leaving criminal law to the states. But I refuse to allow states to have the right either.

        2. A number of states have repealed the penalties for marijuana. Care to point to the part of the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to legislate on the matter?

          The commerce clause, in the CSA it is stated that because you cannot know if drugs crossed a state border, it is assumed they did. The USSC has ruled on this.

          1. The purpose of the commerence clause was to prevent state to state tarrifs and the like. NOT to allow the Federal government to micromanage everything.

          2. Oh Jesus here we go with the commerce clause. Sarah your a moralistic twat. Nothing more, nothing less.

          3. First off, it’s called SCOTUS, not USSC. Second off, the Supreme Court once ruled that escaped slaves aren’t human and thus have no rights. So let’s not put too much faith in the Judiciary. Third, if our Founders came back from the dead right now and saw how “we” have bastardized the Commerce Clause, they would kill themselves.

      3. You’re right. Slavery was a good thing because the government had the right to regulate it based on the fact that we voted for it. This is idiocy. Some things a government should not be able to do even if the citizenry votes for it, like stealing from one group of citizens to give to another group. Just because we vote for it doesn’t make it the government’s right to do it. You can’t have a right to force others to do what you deem moral or immoral, though that is what Sarah is asking for, because she knows better how to live our lives for us.

        It is perfectly okay to think it is immoral or wrong to use drugs; it is quite another thing to use government violence to enforce your moral preferences. Otherwise, we should ban everything, because, surprise, everything can kill us.

        1. It is perfectly okay to think it is immoral or wrong to use drugs; it is quite another thing to use government violence to enforce your moral preferences.

          A majority of people think murder and rape are immoral, so by that logic they can’t be illegal, because isn’t that forcing your morals on others.

          1. Try to wrap your head around this: murder and rape aren’t illegal because people find those acts to be immoral. They are illegal because they violate another person’s rights. They are not illegal because they are a threat to some amorphous concept like “society,” but because tangible, living, breathing human beings have been harmed.

          2. The pesky thing about murder and rape is that there tends to be a victim. Sort of an important distinction.

          3. Yes they should be illegal because someone else is violating your rights when they rape and murder you.

            Unless a crime, like rape or murder, has been committed by a person using drugs it’s none of yours or the governments business because the user is affecting no one but themselves.

            Is this really that fucking hard to understand?

            1. I find your potty mouth objectionable and immoral – I think we should make bad words illegal. I think we should throw rappers and movie start in jail for propagating their use.

        2. It is perfectly okay to think it is immoral or wrong to use drugs; it is quite another thing to use government violence to enforce your moral preferences.

          A majority of people think murder and rape are immoral, so by that logic they can’t be illegal, because isn’t that forcing your morals on others.

          1. No those are crimes that have direct victims.

            Who is the victim of a drug deal or drug use? And if you say the user or the family of the user, you can make the same argument about Krispy Kreme doughnuts, or anything really.

          2. Don’t you have anything better to do besides minding other people’s business?

            1. I think you know the answer to that, lol

          3. Rape and murder cause actual, measurable harm to other people and are objectively wrong. Moving something, whether it’s a drug or some other good, over state lines and/or using it in the privacy of your own home hurts no one but you (and that’s arguable).

            Come on, now.

  3. Futureserf- Good luck with that “right”. If you get caught with illegal drugs, you WILL pay a heavy price.

    1. So, you’re saying the biggest problem with drugs is that they are illegal. I agree 100%.

    2. So true John, so why should a drug users private, personal actions require taxpayers to foot the bill for his/her senseless prosecution. If you claim drugs are bad because “you will pay a heavy price” due to their illegality, then your logic is a 180 from reason on the matter. Isn’t it enough that most people won’t use them and whoever wants to engage in drug use may? It is unreasonable and arrogant to think that everyone must make the right choice according to some made up standard of a presumed majority. Even if that is the case, the Republic was conceived to protect individual’s rights from the majority’s whims.

    3. I take it you also believe that Rosa Parks never had the “right” to illegally sit at the front of a bus.

  4. Mexico exports illegal aliens to us, we export a drug war to Mexico. Works for me. Equal misery for all!

    1. Mexico can keep its drugs and its illegal immigrants…how dare they undercut our domestic growers AND laborers at the SAME time…

    2. Illegal aliens help us, so it’s not a fair trade at all. But since the US comes out ahead, it must be okay.

      1. I don’t, and most Americans don’t, view them as helpful. So as long as they keep coming here, I’m all for invading there, on whatever flimsy pretext is necessary.

        1. They are exactly as helpful as any other human being. Meatbags are meatbags, no matter what side of the border they were born on.

        2. Most Americans are idiots.

        3. Who taught you about the internet, dumb shit?

          And who the hell is to blame for teaching you to read?

      2. “Illegal aliens help us”

        Not so much. Their costs in lost tax income or extra costs imposed on our insurances, schools, medical care ad infinitum is incredibly large.

        They should stay home.

        1. Can we kick out native welfare queens like the Nets guy too?

        2. Actually, no. Illegal immigrants generally contribute half a percent or so to national GDP — even after accounting for the government services they use.

  5. Sarah, those are indeed irrefutable facts. Anything cut and pasted with footnotes can’t be a lie.

    1. Even if what Sarah copies and pastes were 100% truth, why the hell does anyone need to ban marijuana? It’s not like people don’t make decisions every day about what is right for them, safe for them, or used in moderation for them. What people like Sarah will probably never understand is that the freedom to fuck up your own life trumps her “facts.”

      Besides, I could run off a footnoted list of the money we could save in this country by drugs being legal. I could also match it with a list of deaths that have occurred due to the prohibition of drugs, from users and dealers to cops and collateral damage, not to mention pets.

      But maybe Sarah is smarter than everyone else and should decide whether or not I am safe to eat a bacon cheeseburger for lunch.

      1. “I am safe to eat a bacon cheeseburger for lunch.

        no

  6. Holy fuck, who flagged this at Trolls “R” Us?

    1. I’m thinking its staffers bumping up the comment count.

      Seriously, “drug prohibition causes massive death”: how much less controversial a topic can you have on a libertarian forum?

      1. I’m sure we can think of a couple.

        “Nick Gillespie’s jacket is badass”

  7. Is that Molly Ringwald?

  8. But maybe Sarah is smarter than everyone else and should decide whether or not I am safe to eat a bacon cheeseburger for lunch.

    We all pay for each others healthcare, so we do have the right to make that decision, through the democratic process. Every society has rules that must be obeyed.

    1. Congratulations, you’ve just demonstrated why having other people pay for your health care is antithetical to freedom. You know, since I’m paying for your health care, I think you shouldn’t be allowed to drive, play sports, eat foods with fat or salt in them, use power tools, go swimming, or have sex.

      1. Sports are ok because they keep you fit, they just have to be the right ones. IE, no football, boxing etc.

        soccer and tennis are probably still ok.

        1. No way. I’ve seen too many soccer players take a cleat to the nutsack. And haven’t you ever heard of tennis elbow?! Mass casualties on the playing fields of life, my friend.

          Stationary bike, treadmill. That’s it.

          1. No, running on a treadmill is too high-impact of an activity. All treadmills need to have speed limiters on them so that you can go no faster than a brisk walk. Swimming has no impact on joints at all, but unfortunately too many people drown in pools for that to be legal.

    2. But only rules you agree with right?

    3. In a democracy, everyone has a vote on every issue. Majority rules. We live in a republic, a system designed that a majority can not impose it’s will upon individuals. Well, we used to live in a republic…point being, we don’t live in a democracy.

  9. Al Gore makes sh** up about Global Cooling. The religious right makes sh** up about condoms, STD’s and says they can ‘heal’ gay people. Radical feminists, where do I even start with them?

    Scientific research has become so polluted with political agendas that I will not believe a word that comes from the mouth of drug warriors.

  10. If I call my drug addiction a “pre-existing condition” then you have a moral right to pay for my healthcare. Obama said so.

    I also want a pony.

    And, by the way, most Americans agree with me.

    Government, make it so!

  11. yeah even many people in the medical marijuana movement are against letting the growers make a profit, which is bullshit. how is growing marijuana any different than growing other medicinal crops? if its going to be used as a medicine, then the producers and distributors of that medicine should be allowed to profit from their work.

    1. Yeah unfortunately a lot of the cannabis law reform community sees “business” and “profiteering” as ugly words. And that’s too bad, because it’s really business and profiteering — the legal sort — that will finally legitimize this whole thing.

      (And no, I’m not saying that because of tax revenue.)

  12. Sarah,

    Sarah, do your homework. These would be a good start: https://reason.com/archives/200…..eral-damag
    https://reason.com/blog/2010/03…..ray-on-the
    Then come back when have something informed and intelligent to add to the discussion. Thank you.

  13. Sarah’s last name wouldn’t begin with a “P” Not saying, just saying “doncha know”

  14. If the US legalized drug sales, that would help. But if Mexico made drug sales legal, that would end the black market in Mexico and all the problems that go with it. I think the emphasis of the article should have been that Mexico should legalize.

    1. +25

    2. But the market for the stuff is here. What good is legalizing drug sale in Mexico if you still need criminals to control border turf and smuggle the stuff into the states? The only way to replace the Mexican underground market is with an American legitimate market.

      This is about market demand, not supply. The demand is here, not in Mexico, and it needs to be legitimized here.

  15. I get it. If we legalized illegal acts, crime rates would drop considerably.

  16. Legalize all victimless crimes, yes.

    1. And therein lies the difficulty. How and who should define the category of “victimless crimes?”

      1. Er, let me rephrase – how should we define the term “victimless crime” and who should have the final say on the validity of that meaning?

        1. Here’s how you find out if there’s a victim: Has anyone’s rights to life, liberty or property been infringed upon through force or fraud? If yes, then a crime has occured and there’s a victim. If not, no crime has occured and no victim exists.

          It’s fairly simple if you think about it.

          1. What Beamer said.

          2. Crimes are a matter of statute, not constitutional interpretation.

          3. If you have any experience with the law, you would know that no matter how distilled or elegant your proposition, society in all its diversity will inevitably find the gray areas, the ‘in-betweens’, and the inevitably flaws in your theory.

            1. *inevitable

  17. The war in juarez is over all drugs not just weed so legalizing all those narcotics will never happen.Money is the root cause of all evil but its nice to have it in abundance its like a mexican drug lord once told me would you rather work hard as hell earn little money barely get by deal with racist remarks get dis respected rejected for being an imigrant in a country born and built out of imigrants or would u rather live free work smart have plenty of money get respected and feared at the same time live out your wildest dreams and party life away with your beautiful wife,he then said i will fight for what i have and live for the cartel is my empire and just like the roman empire i will protect it at all cost.

    1. The war in juarez is over all drugs not just weed so legalizing all those narcotics will never happen.

      Yeah but weed is the low-hanging fruit. It’s hard to believe that taking away 2/3 of their revenue with one fell swoop wouldn’t have an effect on the political power and control the cartels have.

  18. Is it just timing, or did they get more stronger since we exported the meth production south of the border?

  19. “If the U.S. government were serious about breaking the power of the brutal gangs that profit from prohibition, it would rethink its war on drugs.”

    C’mon Jacob that would make too much sense.

  20. I do not personally advocate the use of drugs,I echo your sentiments.I think we should decriminalize drugs.The drug wars and border violence has spread across the country.We lost the war on drugs.

    1. YEah we should stop fighting… we should let corruption and corrupt people govern us. Let us take the first step to letting force be the way we are ruled. I am going to start a gang that says stealing should be legal and because my gang kills so many people the government should make theft legal and people should stop complaining about their stuff being stolen. Yet another bad argument.

  21. WHY DO WE NEED MEXICO?
    WE DONT
    LET’S CLOSE THE BORDER AND STAND IT OFF WITH OVERWHELMING AND VERY OFFENSIVE MILITARY FORCE FOR 6 MOS AND SEE WHAT PEDRO HAS TO SAY.

  22. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won’t get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there’s more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I’m not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It’s just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight…the Bible’s books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on…the Bible’s books were written by people with very different mindsets…in order to really get the Books of the Bible, you have to cultivate such a mindset, it’s literally a labyrinth, that’s no joke.

  23. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won’t get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there’s more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I’m not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It’s just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight…the Bible’s books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on…the Bible’s books were written by people with very different mindsets…in order to really get the Books of the Bible, you have to cultivate such a mindset, it’s literally a labyrinth, that’s no joke.

  24. Hi. I actually enjoyed reading your current blog post!. Good quality content. I might advise you to write articles much more often. By doing this, with such type of a helpful site I think that you could rank higher in the search engines 🙂 . I also subscribed for your Rss. Keep up this excellent job!

    http://www.abercrombieuk.net

    “”

  25. I don’t got your point. But thank you all the same.

  26. Seiously… people believe that the breaking of a country’s law is the right thing. Blaming a law of one country for the downfall of another. It seems to me that if Mexico’s government was not so corrupt this would be less of a problem than it is now. I have lived in Ciudad Juarez. I have seen the tradgedies that happen there. I have know people that were killed because of drug cartels. This maybe because of the law against drugs in the United States but it is the people that are breaking the law that the problem exists not because of the law. Blaming the US government for the faults of individual citizens selfishness is the most rash and false conclusion that can be drawn. I dislike unintelligence and I dislike people that use reason to Justify there actions and others actions. You like drugs so you don’t think they should be illegal, yet I have many friends that have died of overdosing. is the problem of legalizing drugs really going to be any help at all or does it just cause a whole new way for people to die. Solve the problem, don’t divert it so we have other problems. Poor reasoning for a site that is titled “Reason.com”.

  27. Because the person using the drugs is almost never the only person that is affected. My brother did drugs all the time and his behaviour changed radically when he was high. To the point that my brothers and sisters on numerous occasions had to run from him. I have seen this with friends as well. Judgement goes out the window. That means that peoples decisions start to affect me or someone else. So with drugs a lot of the time there is a victim, because of the impairment that a person has when under the influence of any substance.

  28. The same weekend that Lesley Enriquez, Arthur Redelf, and Jorge Alberto Salcido Ceniceros were killed in their cars as their children screamed in the back seat,

  29. Blaming the US government for the faults of individual citizens selfishness is the most rash and false conclusion that can be drawn. I dislike unintelligence and I dislike people that use reason to Justify there actions and others actions. You like drugs so you don’t think they should be illegal, yet I have many friends that have died of overdosing.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.