Wow, a group with some common sense about the War on Drugs..

[GLM]

“The pursuit of happiness” is not defined in the Constitution. In fact, those words are not even in the Constitution, they are in the Declaration of Independence. Happiness is not guaranteed by the government, nor should it be. It’s far too vague a standard and the expense needed to fulfill it would be unimaginable. The idea that legalizing drugs would lessen the crime associated with drug use sounds nice, but I fear that those people making huge sums of money from their sale and distribution would not just give up the business. And that creates it own set of problems. Plus, while most drug users tend to be non-violent, far too many become aggressive and/or completely unpredictable and would still act this way whether they get their drugs legally or not. As with most problems in the US, I think the proper answer to the drug problem is somewhere in the middle. I do not agree with the “legalize everything and the trouble will go away” crowd, nor do I think that stuffing every Tom, Dick, or Harry caught with small amounts of drugs intended for personal use in prison for extended stays is a good idea either.

 

[Esquire M Busterbury]

Happiness is not guaranteed by the government, nor should it be. It’s far too vague a standard and the expense needed to fulfill it would be unimaginable.

You're right about it not being in the constutution, it was in the declaration (oops) Also right about the lack of a happyness guarantee by the government. If there was, then one could sue over being unhappy. Which is why our founders liked 'the pursuit of happyness'. The standard for allowing it should be "Does it harm another person or their property". If I'm stealing to support my habit, then I'm depriving another of their property. Obviously a real crime, but If I'm out busting my hump to support it, then what right does the government or any agent thereof have to come and deprive my life, liberty, or property. None.

The idea that legalizing drugs would lessen the crime associated with drug use sounds nice, but I fear that those people making huge sums of money from their sale and distribution would not just give up the business. And that creates it own set of problems.

No, they probably wouldn't. But they would make MUCH less, and that means a smaller budget for buying police, prosecutors, judges, hitmen, etc. And as for the problems it's created, how much worse could they really be? It's like argueing for the continuation of alcohol prohibition in the 20's because Al Capone might grow to be a larger problem...but as long as most of the country thinks the solution lies in the middle...(only allowing to drinking a little? How about up to 2 drinks per day, or only until midnight...There ya go, that's better)

Plus, while most drug users tend to be non-violent, far too many become aggressive and/or completely unpredictable and would still act this way whether they get their drugs legally or not.

Same goes for 'squares'. And alcoholics. And tobacco smokers. I'd even go so far as to say that tobacco smokers are way more aggressive and unpredicatable than all the drug users combined (kills more of em too). Being aggressive and unpredictable are neither bad nor illegal. Harming other people's person or property is. Why can't we let that be the line and worry less about what the person next to you is up to?