If tomorrow, authorities shifted the funds used to fight Marijuana into fighting Crystal Meth, would you support it or not?

Absolutely. The illegality of marijuana has nothing to do with alleged social costs and everything to do with DuPont and William Randolph Hearst. DuPont was in the process of inventing synthetic fibers and saw hemp as their main competition (hemp has been used in fabrics and cordage for at least 9000 years).

Hearst had large investments in the timber industry, and hemp was a better and cheaper alternative for making paper. As a result of the propaganda campaign waged through Hearst's newspaper chain and the appointment of a Bureau of Narcotics director (Harry Anslinger) with ties to DuPont, marijuana was outlawed in 1937...in spite of the fact that numerous studies had shown that marijuana use was not harmful and that it had multiple medicinal uses. One of these studies resulted in the Panama Canal Zone Report in 1925; the increasing use of marijuana by off-duty servicemen was found to not be a problem, and the recommendation was that no criminal penalties be applied to its use.

Crystal meth, on the other hand, is a prescription drug (methamphetamine is a Schedule II drug in the US vs. marijuana's Schedule I) in an illicit form, and it is far more dangerous than marijuana. Unlike pot, meth overdoses can be fatal in and of themselves, and long-term use of meth is far more damaging than chronic marijuana use. While both can cause behavioral changes, meth use is more likely to result in violence against others.

Finally, the production of crystal meth is as dangerous as its use. The process involves toxic and flammable chemicals; meth labs have exploded, buildings housing labs have had to be demolished due to contamination, and the operators of meth labs often choose convenience over safety when dumping their toxic waste. Growing plants is a lot safer.

Given the limited funds available for drug control activities, it simply makes economic sense to control the greatest threats first, and marijuana shouldn't even be on the list.

Yes...easily. Compare the ingredients of crystal meth: Drano, Brake Fluid, Lithium From Batteries (Battery Acid), Lighter Fluid, Rubbing Alcohol, Drain cleaner, Gasoline additives, Paint thinner, Freon, Camp stove fuel, White gasoline, Ammonia, Cold Remedies, Hydrochloride, Hydriodic Acid, Red Phosphorus, Lye, Ether (Starter Fluid), Iodine Ephedrine. ...with the ingredients of Marijuana: The plant Cannabis Sativa.It seems pretty obvious that one is extremely bad for humans and the other actually has many positive benefits.

Yes I would Definitely agree with it. It would not automatically legalise Marijuana, it would just put the fight against it on 'slow', for a little while. If a dealer is out on the street dealing it, he/she can still be caught, but the enforcement agencies are no longer pumping a lot of money into fighting Marijuana, a lot into fighting heroin, a lot into fighting Crystal Meth etc.. If they focussed on fighting individual drugs or a group of drugs (starting with the most deadly/dangerous first) they could probably do an awful lot more damage to the drug trade in a quicker time.It seems the bigger dealers and more expensive drugs, have got more money and resources, to pump into distributing them.

Also drugs that are easily made at home prove to be very elusive, So I think it takes more money and resources and focus to take them down. Marijuana is a natural plant, and some people argue that the positive side of it outweighs the negative.It is a debate that has been going on for decades. I doubt very much that a similar debate about crystal meth, would have the same effect.

It would just be considered nonsense and would not be given any notice, or serious consideration.

This is a no-brainer. A rational thought for a change. Increasing funding to stop trafficking of a dangerous drug at the cost of stopping trafficking of a non-dangerous drug (do your research if you don't believe it).

Which one causes people to die? One would only hope so, but the fear of political ramifications would prevent existing officials from changing the policy of funding both as dangerous drugs. If you look up the reference provided by Bomber: wrongdiagnosis.com/m/marijuana/symptoms.htm it says that marijuana causes traffic accidents.

Looking into the site further for evidence of marijuana under the traffic accidents site, there is no mention of marijuana at all on the site. Similarly, "fear of dying" is listed as a symptom, if you check out their reference, it goes to and index, which returns you back to the "marijuana abuse" original page. The same can be said for several of the symptoms listed by this site: panic attack, psychosis..... Lies, lies, lies...... The Marijuana Policy Project crunched U.S.Justice Department statistics for arrests in 2004 and found that there were more arrests for marijuana possession -- 684,319 -- than for all violent crimes combined.In a report commissioned by Taxpayers for Common Sense, Boston University economist Jeffrey A.

Miron estimated that the federal government spent a cumulative total of $257 billion (in 2003 dollars) over three decades on anti-drug efforts, and some $3.67 billion in 2004 on programs designed to reduce marijuana use. Still, Miron wrote, "Marijuana-use rates are little different now than in 1975." If a large portion of this money (all would be my preference) was put into programs to reduce the trafficking in truly dangerous drugs such as cocaine and methamphetamine, then you would see a truly reduced presence of these drugs on the streets.

I know, for instance, in Central America, there are no witness protection programs to provide incentives for people to testify against those who are moving vast quantities of cocaine from Columbia. If you are going to control the movement of this drug, you need to invest monies in the countries that are closest to Columbia, such as Panama and Costa Rica, which are pinch points in the movement of cocaine northward to the United States. Columbia is moving small boatloads at a time, having around 400-500 lbs of cocaine, which are sometimes captured by the local coast guards.

We can assist the local coast guards in doing their job as well. The problem in the perception of drugs is that there should be a rating scale as to which drugs are most dangerous. Certainly alcohol, cocaine, and methamphetamine cause deaths.

According the the Drug War Facts document, marijuana has cause no deaths. So, on a rating scale for dangerousness of drugs of 1-5, where drugs that cause death are 4 or higher, marijuana could be no higher that a 1, possibly much less than that if you could develop a complex statistical analysis using multiple factors. Alchohol is a much more dangerous drug.

Period. So, I vote for a rational drug prevention policy. Isn't it time to invest our resources wisely?

We are in a recession aren't we?

You better believe it. California could probably fix itself financially by legalizing Marijuana. When somebody has smoke weed they just want to sit around and bul#$&#, some people get abnormally sleepy or hungry, but that's alright too.

These drugs should not be in the same category. When somebody does smoke/snort/inject meth, they go f$#&ing crazy.. This is just one persons observation of living in the middle of a big city and having to walk home from work very late at night people on meth are violent people on meth are addicted to it, whether its their first time or their last people on meth steal people on meth become a shell of a human people on meth aren't using it to help their arthritis I would sacrifice the funds..I would join a community group if needed. I have been to Fresno and believe me its no joke.

No. Even though Crystal Meth is a much more dangerous drug, Marijuana is still illegal and it's still arguably bad for you. And I don't have to tell you why.

Shifting the Marijuana funds over to Crystal Meth would inadvertently legalize marijuana. Marijuana dealers could simply walk around selling pot to kids without much to worry about. And I don't have to tell why kids shouldn't smoke pot.

1 I don't think there is such a thing as "moderate" smoking, since any amount of smoking is likely harmful without any associated benefits. As a side note, I think the Natural American Spirit ads promoting "organic" tobacco have to be the height of hypocrisy! .

2 NO amount of cigarette smoking is "moderate"! One cigarette a week or a pack a day, any smoking at all can still lead to lung cancer for both the smoker and those who are downwind from his/her secondhand smoke.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.