Shadow (Login ShadowHM) Posted Jan 30, 2004 1:57 PM
First, this really is Shadow. Not Lissa. You already know that, though.
I fear I was being entirely too subtle in that post.
If I may summarize your position, it seems to be that while you acknowledge the failure of the current policies on drugs, you are unwilling to countenance any form of change without proof that it would not make things worse.
The point I was making was that you are not going to get any such proof, or, at least, you are not going to get any such thing in your lifetime. It will take a paradigm shift - a revolution even. There are too many vested interests preventing such studies from taking place, from the religious leaders to the bureaucrats to the current drug lords. You have a government that is willing to twist my government's arm to prevent us from taking even the tiniest step toward change, just for a small example. And, even when/if such studies could take place, such as the one I linked to, all that will engender more studies (also vigorously opposed).
The logic of the change has been clearly presented by others. For me, the most compelling argument of all is the demonstrable failure of the current policy to diminish drug use and its attendant crimes, other than to enrich the wrong people. The fear of the unknown is a powerful thing, though, even if there were not any vested interests to oppose change. You are not the only one who, despite agreeing with the premise that what you have is worse than ineffective, is afraid to try a change.