The War on Drugs and Privatized Prisons

[Michael01]

I prefer independent news sources like The Real News Network and AlterNet and I've been following a lot of stories about the current crises around the world through them. I was very pleased to stumble on a particular video on TRNN about the War on Drugs. The video features three retired law enforcement agents discussing how that war has failed:

http://therealnews.com/t2/component/...video_id=73118

Personally, I agree with them. I think it's a sham, created and maintained to profit certain industries (paper, textile, oil, privatized prisons...) that has led to many thousands of needless deaths. I'm also glad to see them, people who have first-hand experience fighting the war on the streets, explaining what they really think about it.

I also understand that what happens here in the U.S. is only part of the picture. The U.S. led war has had devastating effects on the lives of people in other parts of the world, too - in fact, much worse than here.

I'd be very interested to know how people here on Chrons feels about this issue.

[Moonbat]

Personally I am pro choice.

There were some very interesting stats in that piece,

7000 prison employees highered whilst 5000 teachers fired.

2/3rds of prisoners inside due to breaking thier probation rules
majority of those due to failing blood tests

The UK drug tsar lost his job because he had the audacity to state an accurate statistic - 'you're more likely to die riding a horse than taking ecstasy' and the classic 'if there was a table with peanuts and ecstasy on it would be safer for a random member of the public to take the ecstasy than the peanuts'

Both of those statements are statistically correct, but it goes against the message we want to give out. There is no way that we will ban dangerous sports, as they are seen as a viable outlet for many reasons (and perfectly good reasons they are too) but drugs (as in illegal drugs) are never going to be treated in the same way.

The current drug laws have given too much power and money to the criminals that can take the risks of producing and supplying drugs (the market is obviously there) when a legitimate industry could regulate and control and be taxed properly.

Drug culture does have its down sides, but then again so do most aspects of human culture. I've grown up in a world where we were told to 'just say no' and that 'drugs are bad' but it hasn't really had the desired effect on my generation.

[Starbeast]

Originally Posted by Moonbat

Personally I am pro choice.

The current drug laws have given too much power and money to the criminals that can take the risks of producing and supplying drugs (the market is obviously there) when a legitimate industry could regulate and control and be taxed properly.

Drug culture does have its down sides, but then again so do most aspects of human culture. I've grown up in a world where we were told to 'just say no' and that 'drugs are bad' but it hasn't really had the desired effect on my generation.

I felt the same on this issue for quite some time. People want to get "high" no matter what, most are unhappy people and while the rest enjoy the effects. Mainly alcohol is still a big business, liquor stores and bars are every where. But individuals always have the choice to drink or not.

Legalizing and regulating "safe" drugs would save a lot of lives.

1. It would keep kids from taking their chances with dangerous chemicals in which they experiment to induce intoxication.

2. Drug Cartels would loose business and eventually power.

3. People wouldn't take risks in crime ridden areas to obtain their drug of choice.

4. People wouldn't have to worry about being poisoned by drugs that are either fake or too strong.

5. People wouldn't need to hide their drug usage and can be monitored by family and or friends.

6. And people wouldn't be sent to prison for drug charges and placed in cells with dangerous criminals.

Also courts wouldn't need to waste time and money on people with petty drug charges.

On the lighter side, junk food and music sales would probably increase.

[Peter Graham]

Legalizing and regulating "safe" drugs would save a lot of lives.

Which drugs are safe? I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I'm interested to see which ones are OK and what the measure is.

1. It would keep kids from taking their chances with dangerous chemicals in which they experiment to induce intoxication.

I doubt it. Some drugs - notably caffeine, alcohol and nicotine - are already legal. That doesn't stop folk trying illegal drugs. People like getting wrecked, ideally cheaply. People also like being cool and fashionable. If it was fashionable to eat dog sh*t laced with ketamine, there'd be no shortage of people willing to "experiment".

2. Drug Cartels would loose business and eventually power.

How would this work? The UK or the US could only legalise the use of drugs in their own jurisdictions. They could not legalise the production overseas.

3. People wouldn't take risks in crime ridden areas to obtain their drug of choice.

That depends a) on whether their drug of choice has passed the "safe"" test and therefore been deemed legal and b) whether their drug of choice can be obtained cheaper through nefarious means. The more you tax or regulate, the more likely that cheaper suppliers will hold the market. For example, hooky tobacco and booze bought legally in France or Belgium finds a ready market in the UK.

4. People wouldn't have to worry about being poisoned by drugs that are either fake or too strong.

What cutting agents will the governments be allowed to use? Street smack is about 40-60% pure. Cocaine is less and amphetamine usually comes in around the 5% mark. Ecstasy has taken a nosedive in purity as the price has dropped through the floor. Druggies often overdose when they buy gear which hasn't been repeatedly cut with all manner of horrible things. Ephedrine or glucose if you're lucky, but otherwise anything which is about the right colour and which you can pulverise. Will the government be doing this too in order to keep strength down?

5. People wouldn't need to hide their drug usage and can be monitored by family and or friends.

Just like happens with alcohol! This is why we don't have an alcohol problem at all over here.

6. And people wouldn't be sent to prison for drug charges and placed in cells with dangerous criminals.

It might well be different in the US (where some people seem to get 100 years for jaywalking), but over here, petty drug users rarely get sent to prison. You generally only get fined even for possession of smack. The dealers do get sent down, but they are not always terribly nice people.

Regards,

Peter

[Starbeast]

Which drugs are safe? I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I'm interested to see which ones are OK and what the measure is.

Governments would provide info on that.

I doubt it. Some drugs - notably caffeine, alcohol and nicotine - are already legal. That doesn't stop folk trying illegal drugs. People like getting wrecked, ideally cheaply. People also like being cool and fashionable. If it was fashionable to eat dog sh*t laced with ketamine, there'd be no shortage of people willing to "experiment".

We'll have to wait and see the results.

How would this work? The UK or the US could only legalise the use of drugs in their own jurisdictions. They could not legalise the production overseas.

If the U.S. legalized drugs, the need for smuggling them here would drop.

That depends a) on whether their drug of choice has passed the "safe"" test and therefore been deemed legal and b) whether their drug of choice can be obtained cheaper through nefarious means. The more you tax or regulate, the more likely that cheaper suppliers will hold the market. For example, hooky tobacco and booze bought legally in France or Belgium finds a ready market in the UK.

We'll have to wait and see.

What cutting agents will the governments be allowed to use? Street smack is about 40-60% pure. Cocaine is less and amphetamine usually comes in around the 5% mark. Ecstasy has taken a nosedive in purity as the price has dropped through the floor. Druggies often overdose when they buy gear which hasn't been repeatedly cut with all manner of horrible things. Ephedrine or glucose if you're lucky, but otherwise anything which is about the right colour and which you can pulverise. Will the government be doing this too in order to keep strength down?

We'll have to wait and see.

Just like happens with alcohol! This is why we don't have an alcohol problem at all over here.

There are still a great deal of car accidents caused by drunk drivers here.

It might well be different in the US (where some people seem to get 100 years for jaywalking), but over here, petty drug users rarely get sent to prison. You generally only get fined even for possession of smack. The dealers do get sent down, but they are not always terribly nice people.

Punishment is tough in the U.S. relating to drug crimes, even petty ones.

[mosaix]

As usual some sensible debating on the Chrons.

But I don't think we can debate the issue properly by just lumping everything that people take under the single heading of 'drugs'.

Is it ok to talk about pro choice without differentiating between say ecstasy and, say, heroin - the addictive nature of which takes away freedom of choice?

[Michael01]

You've raised some very good points, Peter. These are definitely things that should be addressed when considering the possible legalization or decriminalization of drugs.

Originally Posted by Peter Graham

Which drugs are safe? I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I'm interested to see which ones are OK and what the measure is.

None of them are safe, in my opinion. They are all dangerous, although some might be less dangerous than others. One that is less dangerous than alcohol is marijuana. People definitely should not operate machinery of any kind (such as driving a car) when under the influence of cannabis, but it does not make people unable to move or stand properly and it does not cause blackouts.

As far as how to measure this, why not regulate them according to addictiveness and how deadly they are? For example, sometimes a single puff on a crack pipe can kill. Something like that probably should not be as readily available as alcohol.

Originally Posted by Peter Graham

I doubt it. Some drugs - notably caffeine, alcohol and nicotine - are already legal. That doesn't stop folk trying illegal drugs. People like getting wrecked, ideally cheaply. People also like being cool and fashionable. If it was fashionable to eat dog sh*t laced with ketamine, there'd be no shortage of people willing to "experiment".

This is true, although prehaps a bit exaggerated when it comes to eating fecal matter. I still think that with decriminalization, these kinds of problems will not be quite as prevalent.

Originally Posted by Peter Graham

How would this work? The UK or the US could only legalise the use of drugs in their own jurisdictions. They could not legalise the production overseas.

No they can't, although some countries are talking about doing just that for themselves and some will possibly follow suit later - if they see it working. I agree that it is overly optimistic to think the cartels would be out of business or anything like that, but it is not really an exaggeration to say that they will lose a significant chunk of their profits. I don't know about the UK, but - from some of the statistics I've seen - the U.S. is probably the biggest market for these drugs in the world.

Originally Posted by Peter Graham

That depends a) on whether their drug of choice has passed the "safe"" test and therefore been deemed legal and b) whether their drug of choice can be obtained cheaper through nefarious means. The more you tax or regulate, the more likely that cheaper suppliers will hold the market. For example, hooky tobacco and booze bought legally in France or Belgium finds a ready market in the UK.

Good point, but how much of a problem is it for real? People make moonshine in the U.S. I live in a low-income neighborhood and I know people are buying illegal drugs, but I actually do not know anyone who buys moonshine or unregulated tobacco. But I'm also inclined to think that's partly a problem with tax policies.

Originally Posted by Peter Graham

What cutting agents will the governments be allowed to use? Street smack is about 40-60% pure. Cocaine is less and amphetamine usually comes in around the 5% mark. Ecstasy has taken a nosedive in purity as the price has dropped through the floor. Druggies often overdose when they buy gear which hasn't been repeatedly cut with all manner of horrible things. Ephedrine or glucose if you're lucky, but otherwise anything which is about the right colour and which you can pulverise. Will the government be doing this too in order to keep strength down?

Here is a real problem. As long as corporations are in control, drugs probably won't be decriminalized, let alone legalized. However, if they were, we could expect corporations to add all kinds of poisons to substances that are already serious problems. Witness the cigarette companies (ammonia, strictnine, arsenic, lighter fluid, you name it). If regulated in a relatively safe manner (say, by health professionals?), these drugs could be cut with something benign.

Originally Posted by Peter Graham

Just like happens with alcohol! This is why we don't have an alcohol problem at all over here.

Absolutely true. But we can still say that there is a significant difference between illegal drugs and alcohol. During the years of alcohol prohibition, the U.S. experienced the same kind of violent crimes over illegal booze that are now associated with illegal drugs. This does not happen anymore. I'm inclined to think of this as a measure of the success of legalizing alcohol.

Originally Posted by Peter Graham

It might well be different in the US (where some people seem to get 100 years for jaywalking), but over here, petty drug users rarely get sent to prison. You generally only get fined even for possession of smack. The dealers do get sent down, but they are not always terribly nice people.

Starbeast has it right. In the U.S., people go to jail for possessing small amounts of marijuana. Many people spend many years in jail for non-violent drug-related crimes - usually people of color (one reason for the criticism that the "War on Drugs" is also racist). The laws are very strict for drug-users here. And putting these people in jail, unfortunately, is a profitable business itself, so there's a lot of incentive to lock them up and keep them there.

For myself, I'm not actually for a complete "legalization." I'd prefer a system of decriminalization. If I need to clarify the difference, I'll try to do so later.

EDIT: Sorry, Mosaix. I'll be thinking about your question and try to get back to you later, if someone else doesn't address it first.

[Moonbat]

Is it ok to talk about pro choice without differentiating between say ecstasy and, say, heroin - the addictive nature of which takes away freedom of choice?

I think education is key, if people are made aware of the relevant details of specific drugs then they ultimately have the choice to take them in the first place. I see what you say about the addictive nature of certain drugs as taking away the freedom of choice, but the initial choice (as long as the user is aware of the possible life long addiction that follows) is up to the person.

I think there are schools of thought that argue alcoholism is not a choice, and that the level of addiction required to be an alcoholic is high enough that the person no longer has a choice, I think they say that 'it is a disease' and so the person must be treated as a patient.

While I think we all agree that some drugs (heroin, crack, cocaine) are very addictive and in some cases much more addictive than alcohol the two major legal drugs (cigarettes and alcohol) are both addictive in nature and can lead to people having no choice but to follow their cravings. But for those people who inevitably will take hard drugs and become addicted, would a regulated industry give them more or less help when it comes to kicking the habit or dealing with the consequences of their lifestyle choice?

[Peter Graham]

I think education is key, if people are made aware of the relevant details of specific drugs then they ultimately have the choice to take them in the first place.

I fear that might be wishful thinking. There is plenty of education out there about alcohol, but we in Britain appear to have a moronically immature attitude to alcoholic intoxication hardwired into our DNA. It was ever thus - Wellington's European counterparts were amazed at the pathetic love of drunkenness of the British troops.

We have to cut to the chase. People - and particularly young, British people - think it's cool to get out of their heads. The more intellectual drug users read Huxley or Thompson and try and pretend their drug use is somehow creative or about self exploration, but they are deceiving themselves. No amount of education will prevent Brits getting hammered, irrespective of the risks.

I see what you say about the addictive nature of certain drugs as taking away the freedom of choice, but the initial choice (as long as the user is aware of the possible life long addiction that follows) is up to the person.

This presupposes that each of us can make an equally informed choice and completely ignores the socio-economic circumstances of the average smackhead.

But leaving all that aside, do I also have the right to make choices? Do I, as a non-heroin using taxpayer, have the right to refuse to subsidise the lifestyles of drug users to a far greater extent than I do currently? Because smackheads can't work and must therefore be funded by the state. They can't work because their lives are sh*te. They are either looking for smack, taking smack, under the influence of smack, rattling to a greater or lesser degree because they haven't got any smack or are asleep. This would not change just because smack was decriminalised or even being supplied by the government. If we want to legalise heroin as a means of reducing crime, we have to provide smackheads with as much of it as they want, at our expense. We've had this discussion before and I know you won't accept the hard mathematics of the situation, but that doesn't make it less right.

But for those people who inevitably will take hard drugs and become addicted, would a regulated industry give them more or less help when it comes to kicking the habit or dealing with the consequences of their lifestyle choice?

It wouldn't make any difference. Addicts will only stop being addicts when they are ready to change. Many die before they get to that stage. Support is out there already - but it cannot be imposed on people. At best, a regulated drug industry will keep a chunk of the population in a sort of wrecked status quo - 100% subsidised and largely insulated from the true consequences of their actions because someone else will be paying the financial price for their "lifestyle choice".

Regards,

Peter

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Starbeast

2. Drug Cartels would loose business and eventually power.

This seems highly unlikely.

Alcohol and cigarettes are legal, but that doesn't stop people smuggling them. This is because they're heavily taxed. Now unless the newly-legalised drugs are to be free of tax (like that's going to happen), there's always going to be scope for illegally making money out of supplying them. (And being illegally obtained, no tax is paid on the profit, another bonus for the gangs.)

That's how the Albanian gangs first made their money: smuggling cigarettes into Italy in speedboats. (I think they've broadened their horizons since then.)

[mosaix]

Originally Posted by Moonbat

I think education is key, if people are made aware of the relevant details of specific drugs then they ultimately have the choice to take them in the first place. I see what you say about the addictive nature of certain drugs as taking away the freedom of choice, but the initial choice (as long as the user is aware of the possible life long addiction that follows) is up to the person.

I agree about education, but having put two kids through school I just can't see that they could be educated any more about drugs than they were. I know I'm still concentrating on the hard, addictive drugs here, Moonbat, but I'm sure that most heroin addicts wouldn't want to be where they are now - even though it's difficult to imagine that they weren't warned / educated. That sounds like I'm being a bit judgemental there, I'm not.

What I'm trying to say is that the world after the event (getting addicted) is a totally different world to the one before the event and most addicts would want to go back. I think most addicts would wish it had been harder for them to become addicted in the first place, not easier.

[Moonbat]

we in Britain appear to have a moronically immature attitude to alcoholic intoxication hardwired into our DNA

I would argue that it is hardwired into our society, not our DNA, but is it wishful thinking to say that educated people have a choice? It might be wishful thinking to hope that they would choose not to use hard drugs, because as you say

No amount of education will prevent Brits getting hammered

if this is the case, and it almost certainly is, then wouldn't regulation ensure that those getting hammered are getting hammered more safely? At least if things were regulated it would probably be required that the 'cutting agents' would have to be mentioned on the packet, and if they were to cause harm then the (ab)user might have a legal recourse for compensation.

Unfortunately we don't really have many social experiments to draw data from, but (as is always rolled out in these case) prohibition in the US was an example of criminalising a popular drug and the results were a rise in smuggling, production and sale by criminal gangs, in fact I think it could be said that some of the gangs were created by the opportunity (or at least grew significantly due to it). So now, as the initial video link says, the war on drugs has created plenty of gangs that operate across the US, I expect the UK is the same. I wonder if the gangs created around the time of prohibition, to take advantage of the market need for cheap illegal booze, are still operating but have moved onto other criminal enterprises. I don't doubt that legalising and regulating cannabis (or other harder drugs) in the UK would cause the gangs that were making money from it to lose out and be forced to make money in some other way (there are much worse ways they could make money) but is that a reason not to do it?

I guess the arguments against legalising (or decriminalising) certain drugs are health related or, as Peter says, economic in nature.

If we want to legalise heroin as a means of reducing crime, we have to provide smackheads with as much of it as they want, at our expense.

The crime of taking/possesing Herion would be reduced, the related crimes of heroin addicts stealing/robbing to get their next fix wouldn't be, but the larger crime of the people producing the heroin, smuggling it into the country and selling it on the street (and specifically the income from it) would be reduced.

At best, a regulated drug industry will keep a chunk of the population in a sort of wrecked status quo - 100% subsidised and largely insulated from the true consequences of their actions because someone else will be paying the financial price for their "lifestyle choice".

I'm not sure that they would be subsidised? Do we subsidise alcoholics and keep allowing them to abuse alcohol? I guess the daily mail would argue that the work shy council house benefit scroungers spend all their money on cheap booze and fags, but its isn't that black and white.

As I have said, I'm pro choice, in regards to everything. Heroin use comes with repercussions as do most things, but the legalisation of a soft drug (like cannabis) would create a huge amount of money for the government (in the form of taxes) and take a huge amount of money from the black market into the blue one (does the legal market have a colour?) as well as emptying jails (maybe not ours, but the US's) full of loads of drugs users or probation breakers.

We've had this discussion before and I know you won't accept the hard mathematics of the situation, but that doesn't make it less right.

Hard mathematics of the situation? I don't think we really have any, only those that you can presuppose from the current situation. But you are right, we have had this discussion before, and so before we go round and round in circles I will stop arguing for the legalisation of all drugs, and we can concentrate on those softer ones, particularly the ones softer than those currently legal.

[Peter Graham]

if this is the case, and it almost certainly is, then wouldn't regulation ensure that those getting hammered are getting hammered more safely?

It would, but it would still involve a positive commitment (for which read "lots of money") to supporting the lifestyles of people who wished to make no contribution in return. It's political suicide and rightly so.

At least if things were regulated it would probably be required that the 'cutting agents' would have to be mentioned on the packet, and if they were to cause harm then the (ab)user might have a legal recourse for compensation.

Suing the government for all of the free drugs they have been given? You're right, though.

Unfortunately we don't really have many social experiments to draw data from, but (as is always rolled out in these case) prohibition in the US was an example of criminalising a popular drug and the results were a rise in smuggling, production and sale by criminal gangs,

True - but there is a difference between criminalising something which was legal and which is widely regarded as socially acceptable and legalising something which is illegal and which is widely regarded as socially unacceptable.

The crime of taking/possesing Herion would be reduced, the related crimes of heroin addicts stealing/robbing to get their next fix wouldn't be,

In the UK at least, heroin users don't go to prison for using - they go to prison for stealing, robbing and dealing.

I'm not sure that they would be subsidised? Do we subsidise alcoholics and keep allowing them to abuse alcohol?

Here is the rub. They would have to be subsidised.

The maths works like this (I accept my figures are about 5 years out of date):-

1. Heroin addicts can't work, so receive state benefits. JSA is about £70 per week.

2. A bag of heroin costs about £10. Depending on availability, you might be able to bulk buy 8 bags for about £50.

3. Typical users use 3-5 bags per day, or 21-35 per week. Let's split the difference at 27.

4. 27 bags of heroin costs £270, or £180ish if you have enough cash to hand to buy in bulk.

5. You still have to find money for food etc on top. Let's allow £30 per week.

6. Users therefore typically run at a shortfall of about £200 per week. That's £10,400 per annum. They raise that money by stealing, burgling, mugging, dealing and prostitution.

So, if we wish to reduce acquisitive crime - the vast majority of which is carried out by addicts - we have no option other than to provide the gear for free.

As I have said, I'm pro choice, in regards to everything

I bet you aren't.

but the legalisation of a soft drug (like cannabis) would create a huge amount of money for the government (in the form of taxes)

I agree.

I will stop arguing for the legalisation of all drugs, and we can concentrate on those softer ones, particularly the ones softer than those currently legal.

Legality is a product of history rather than anything else. If tobacco were discovered today, I have no doubt it would be banned.

I have no particular personal issue with people smoking dope provided a) they don't boast about it endlessly and b) see a). But to legalise dope is to legalise a practice which does increase the chances of cancer, heart disease, psychosis et al. Legalisation implies approval, or at least that a practice is safe. Smoking anything is highly unsafe and the current trend towards banning smoking in more and more places is perhaps significant.

Choice is fine, but choices have consequences and frequently other folk have to pick up the tab. Is the right to smoke a spliff in public really so important that it aces all other types of choice?

Regards,

Peter

[Moonbat]

but it would still involve a positive commitment (for which read "lots of money") to supporting the lifestyles of people who wished to make no contribution in return.

Most of the

young, British people

who get hammered do so at the weekends or in the evenings, plenty of them have jobs and so do support their lifestyles. I think you're talking about the users of the hardest drugs, ecstasy takers don't usually have to have their habit subsidised.

Suing the government for all of the free drugs they have been given?

I've not said the drugs should be free, you have, under the assumption that anyone taking them is unable to work.

Heroin addicts can't work

Are you certain of that? Also we are assuming that anyone who uses Heroin is an addict. But again this is only for the hardest drugs, dope smokers can work, so can cocaine addicts.

I bet you aren't.

You're right, I'm against betting.
What things would you bet I am not pro-choice about?

But to legalise dope is to legalise a practice which does increase the chances of cancer, heart disease, psychosis et al. Legalisation implies approval, or at least that a practice is safe. Smoking anything is highly unsafe and the current trend towards banning smoking in more and more places is perhaps significant.

This is the part of the argument that I would consider politcal suicide. In an increasingly health conscious world it is almost inconceivable that our Government would ever legalise something that is (in most cases) smoked. You are right, inhaling hot smoke into the lungs is not good for them, but we do let people over the age of 16 do it anyway, and arguably the toxins in tobacco (or mixed with it in most branded cigarrettes) are far worse than what occurs in the more natural product of Cannabis (regardless of how engineered it has become).

there is a difference between criminalising something which was legal and which is widely regarded as socially acceptable and legalising something which is illegal and which is widely regarded as socially unacceptable.

I not arguing that hard drugs are socially acceptable, but I think softer ones are, and if they aren't is that because we've had 50 years of the 'war on drugs' rammed down our throats under the guise that the government know what's best for us. Legalising somethng that is illegal is different from criminlising somethat that is legal, but is that a reason not to change and to keep throwing money into the front line on the war against drugs?

Is the right to smoke a spliff in public really so important that it aces all other types of choice?

There was no argument that it should be done in public, but you've come back to the argument that to choose to do it is infringing on other people's choices for you not to do it, or as you put it, to not pick up the tab.

What other types of choices does the smoking of a spliff in public (or private) infringe upon or come into direct conflict with? (except the second hand smoke argument which if it is outdoors, as it most certainly would have to be, isn't really relevant.)

MB

[Peter Graham]

I think you're talking about the users of the hardest drugs, ecstasy takers don't usually have to have their habit subsidised.

Agreed. What's more, for the most part, people who smoke weed or take crappy ecstasy tablets don't generally go thieving to support the habit. I thought, perhaps wrongly, that people were arguing for legalisation of all drugs and was merely pointing out that this is not quite as easy or as wonderful a solution as some folk appear to believe.

I've not said the drugs should be free, you have, under the assumption that anyone taking them is unable to work.

I was specifically talking about heroin, but I'd extend it to crack and most other related drugs of both those families. I totally accept that weed smokers and weekend pill heads can and do make a contribution to society and hold down jobs. Ideally in all-night garages.

Are you certain of that? Also we are assuming that anyone who uses Heroin is an addict.

Quite certain. There are three types of people - those who don't use heroin at all, heroin addicts and people on the way to becoming heroin addicts.

What things would you bet I am not pro-choice about?

Adults having sexual relationships with toddlers. Am I right?

You are right, inhaling hot smoke into the lungs is not good for them, but we do let people over the age of 16 do it anyway, and arguably the toxins in tobacco (or mixed with it in most branded cigarrettes) are far worse than what occurs in the more natural product of Cannabis (regardless of how engineered it has become).

Cannabis is no more a "natural" product than tobacco. in any event, many people mix it with tobacco to smoke it in spliff form, usually without tips/filters.

I not arguing that hard drugs are socially acceptable, but I think softer ones are,

You're not arguing that they are socially acceptable - you're arguing that they should be. I agree.

but is that a reason not to change and to keep throwing money into the front line on the war against drugs?

The war on drugs is predominantly a war against heroin and crack. Many coppers dread finding a bit of weed on someone because of all the paperwork it involves.

What other types of choices does the smoking of a spliff in public (or private) infringe upon or come into direct conflict with?

Aside from possible public order issues (gangs of youths drinking or smoking can and do intimidate some folk), none at all.

Regards,

Peter