Several amazing assumptions here. Sorry if I interrupted anyone's session of hallucinogenic intoxication!

If "75% of crime is drug-related", as ozandy claims, then how can we support ozandy's claim that "There are many beneficiaries from prohibition, but mostly they are the criminal gangs, the criminal financiers"? Specifically, if prohibition imprisons or even shoots a big dealer (as it so often has, like Pablo Escobar) then how is that dealer a beneficiary of prohibition?

ozandy: "countries with the most fervent anti-drugs policy have the most addicts and the most corruption...drugs not a problem in Western cultures until prohibition"

No. As UNODC’s Director-General Antonio Maria Costa countered to a Dutch cannabis promoter at last month's Vienna conference of the UN’s Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Dutch policy has not brought that country low rates of drug use. Costa referred to official statistics to demolish that myth, reminding conference participants that the Dutch have the largest anti-drug budget (0.7% of GDP) all because of their liberalist policies on narcotics. Costa reminded that the Dutch are changing their policies precisely because of their serious problems in such liberalization.

And to claim "drugs not a problem until prohibition"! Such tragically confused logic fails to see that prohibition was introduced precisely because the drugs became a problem, not the other way around. As Costa declared: "Drugs are not harmful because they are controlled; they are controlled because the are harmful," and "a policy change is needed against crime, not in favor of drugs".

And what's with the passive anti-war cliches like "war does more harm than good"? How was that calculated? Should the Chinese, for example, have NOT resisted when the British Empire's gunboats came with opium and missionaries? Should fascism have been allowed to simply roll through wherever it wanted in the 1940s? "War does more harm than good": such a silly, irrational assertion.

And spare us the reptile-brain "Right-Left" binary stuff. In their practically applied barbarism and callous disregard for workers and other poor people, imperialist drug legalizers are as obviously "right wing fascist" as we could ever expect to find in the political scene.

ok seems the war on drug users is a cultural cost of war[as anzac mourning has gone a respectfull time past,..lets talk about war[war allows for war powers[the reason we have a drug war is purely so govt can exceed its limitations

see that the constitution gives laws constituted powers[to create acts for those who gain their powers under the con-stitution[it purely controls those who fall under the act]..other than that we have criminal law[needing a victim[and civil law..[the law of contract]

drug/law is percicuted under civil/acts..[acts that are MEANT to control govt acts..lol//[not the people]..but by clever lawyer tactics 20 out of 21 drug-users plead guilty..[despite no clear victim,..appart from the idiots,..conned decieved and tricked into pleading guilty..via[creating a contract]

but here is the scam 89 percent of the drug guilty/pleas are for a plant..[legally a plant affixt into the ground cant be possesed as the law deems it to belong to the ground,..yet police can come and remove the plant[legally'a'fixture]..and create a fungable..[a tradable commodity]...then get the retards to plead/guilty to possesion..[by police creating a signed contract;caled a con-fession],..then they take the contracted-confession to a civil/court and get the judge to enforce their con-tract...lol its a joke]

for the few who plead not guilty they yet have been coerced into signing contracts..[to get out of jail,..then by submitting to the rape of procedure..[then lose their legal;standing by responding to legal terms such as defendant[or mr]..that are legally suss terms inplying guilt..[but no lawyer going to tell you that...lol..they clean up huge by this war on the ignorant and stoned

under magnacarta/law testimony of REAL_INJURY needs two/witnesses..not self incriminalisation,[via contract obtained under jures/[duress]..by men with guns and tape recorders seeking to make contract to create self/incrimination a crime

here is a real scam,..conducted as a real war..using the rules of war[where police are distracted from real_crime to percicute children mearly using a plant..[read gen 1;29..god gives us EVERY herb/plant bearing seed..]..yet the spawn of satan will deem a plant a drug them percicute children for a joint[..so it can fight drug wars to kill his other children]

OUG: "...legally a plant affixt into the ground cant be possesed as the law deems it to belong to the ground".

Wrong OUG. It's a simple property issue, whether via direct ownership or custodial responsibility. Whatever tricks police pull to extract confessions (and thereby faster convictions) are all grounds for concern about the legal system itself, and the tendency for English law and its descendants to let around half of the actually "guilty' off scot free (with the help of mercenary counsel too, of course).

Btw, on plants and the God-given innocence of nature as something untouchable: would you propose that "plant" status means intervention or controls from state are intrinsically immoral and/or unlawful? Do you propose such special exemption status for coca, opium, peyote, daytura and other narcotic plants too, all much stronger and more dangerous than cannabis?