6 ms·

Please legalize all drugs while banning all middlemen with prior convictions and requiring they be US-made. Portugal has shown legalization actually reduces bo

Please legalize all drugs while banning all middlemen with prior convictions and requiring they be US-made. Portugal has shown legalization actually reduces both crime and drug abuse: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/03/14/portugal http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/03/14... Plus we will no longer be funding political instability the world over with the money of addicts. Better yet we can tax and treat the addicted.

bjelkeman-again 17y ago
The Economist, argued for the legalisation as the way forward in the article (Mar 5th 2009): "How to stop the drug wars, Prohibition has failed; legalisation is the least bad solution" which is behind the paywall. http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13237193 http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?story... The final paragraph is: "A calculated gamble, or another century of failure? This newspaper first argued for legalisation 20 years ago. Reviewing the evidence again, prohibition seems even more harmful, especially for the poor and weak of the world. Legalisation would not drive gangsters completely out of drugs; as with alcohol and cigarettes, there would be taxes to avoid and rules to subvert. Nor would it automatically cure failed states like Afghanistan. Our solution is a messy one; but a century of manifest failure argues for trying it."
dantheman 17y ago
Just make it legal for people do to do whatever they want to themselves. It's simple and easy. Don't add any regulations they just create criminals out of non criminal behavior.
- sliverstorm 17y ago
  Yeah! While you're at it, remove all the regulations from alcohol, including regulation on BAC while driving a car. I mean, really, you can do whatever you want to yourself! If driving on public roads at a BAC of 0.35 is criminal, I don't want to be law-abiding!
  - stingraycharles 17y ago
    If you were the only person using the public roads, I wouldn't see a problem with it; the problem is that other people are using the roads too, and at that point, you're putting those people at risk.
    - sliverstorm 17y ago
      Exactly. No surprise there. That's my point. I'm sorry if I take a bit of a negative attitude towards it all, I just get tired of people who completely overlook the impacts their own actions may have on other people.
      - metamemetics 17y ago
        Right. Everytime I light up a joint, God causes a drunk driver to hit someone.
        sliverstorm 17y ago
        You think using mj has no impact or risk on other people? How about driving baked? It's probably not as bad as driving drunk, but when you're on the same road as me piloting a 2-ton missile around me, 'not as bad as wasted' isn't quite good enough. This is exactly the kind of attitude I'm talking about.
        metamemetics 17y ago
        I don't drive when high. And if I did, it would still be a DUI even if marijuana was legal. DUI laws are not whats under debate. You're confounding the issue. And on a side note, I agree it's less harmful than driving drunk and alcohol is legal to possess.
        sliverstorm 17y ago
        i'm not. the parent i first replied to suggested we should remove all regulations, and DUI laws are a regulation.
- mkramlich 17y ago
  Imagine you have a wife and children, and you live in the world where anybody can do whatever they want "to themselves." So in that world, the people in the houses on either side of you start doing cocoaine, heroin, meth, etc. You revel in their freedom, taking great pride in your liberarian country. Then one night they break in to your house crazed and murder your family. Yeah for freedom! Yeah for letting people do whatever they want! Oh wait...
  - dantheman 17y ago
    yeah, because that happens now when people do drugs all over the place... How about instead of made up bogeymen, why don't you look at the horrors the prohibition of drugs has created. 1. Militarization of police 2. Attack on civil liberties 3. Funding illegal organizations, and causing gang crime 4. A gigantic waste of money 5. Ruining countless numbers of lives through incarceration Or perhaps you might want to look at Portugal: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-dr... Or perhaps you'd like to take a look at the hell in mexico that drug prohibition has caused: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/23/mexico-drug-wars-cartels http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/23/mexico-drug-wars... So I have the cause of freedom on my side, as well as all the 2nd and 3rd order effects. Perhaps you should change your position.
    - mkramlich 17y ago
      Actually yes it's happening right now, there's a very high correlation right now with people who do certain kinds of drugs (cocaine, meth, heroin, that sort of thing) and crazy, violent, self-destructive and community-destructive behavior. I for one don't want more of that going on than already is going on. I don't want to live in a world where that's more widespread. 1. The police in my area don't seem militarized. Where in the US are the police militarized? Are you seriously referring to things like tanks, jets, battleships, mortars, or what? In my town, and it appears in most of the rest of Colorado, we have police and they mostly do old fashioned police sorts of things. 2. Attack is a strong word. That also sounds like you're suggesting it's something pervasive. I bet if we did a poll of people, at least here in Colorado, for example, I bet we'd find that at most a very small fraction of 1% of the population will say they feel they have experienced an "attack on [their] civil liberties". Another point I'd add to this is one could make a very strong argument for the position that there is no such thing as some inherent "right" to anything. People do what they can get away with, and it's been happening like that for millions of years, I suspect. Heck, I'd love to have the "right" to do anything I wanted. But in practice, that's not going to happen. And there's that notion of one person's rights end where another's begin. Your right to walk down the street firing a gun ends where my right to walk down the street and not be shot by some idiot, begins. 3. the folks who buy a thing are the ones funding it, I would argue. If you buy illegal drugs, YOU are funding the organization which provided it to you. The government did not. That's a physical fact. Yes, if it was legal, then you might be buying it from a different source, and then YOU still would be the one funding it. 4. "gigantic waste of money" -- I cannot refute this point, merely say it's a question of whether one thinks that the benefits of the situation outweigh the disadvantages. Do the positives outweigh the negatives? Are their better ways of achieving the same goal, for less cost? Perhaps, I don't now. But if your position is that nothing positive has come from it, I think that's a harder case to make. 5. again I think this is a case of individuals making poor choices and ruining their OWN lives -- through their OWN actions. The government did not come along and ruin their life, against their will. It's also not clear to me that in every case where an individual buys or sells an illegal drug, and gets busted for it, that when they are processed by the legal system their lives are all automatically ruined -- that's a pretty extreme statement. However, in the other direction, I'd argue that when people CHOOSE to use/consume/inhale/inject those hard, illegal drugs they very often do ruin their own lives, or set them on the road to ruin. They also make the world worse for their families, friends, and communities. There's a lot of evidence to support that position. Hey, if I could live in a world where all the hard, "bad" drugs were legal and easily available AND also live in a world that has not turned into a violent, anarchic, ghetto-like hellhole (due to bad drug behavior & culture) I would like that. On your Mexico point... counter-point: there are other countries where the same drugs are also prohibited, and they don't have the serious violent drug gang/war problem as Mexico. And as you pointed out, there are also countries that have looser drug laws, and they have less problems (apparently, in some dimensions) than Mexico or the US. So perhaps the stronger correlation is with the type of culture, and the type of people, and the types of lifestyles, choices, intellect, etc. that exist in those different areas. All I know for sure is that there's a high correlation between hard drug use and with behavior that is destructive to self and community, and so I don't want to live in a world where there's a larger percentage of people doing that. This is not an academic argument, it's a practical one, based on seeing and experiencing and knowing real people in my life and community that have went down the path of hard drugs -- even if those drugs were legal, it wouldn't change their effects on mind and body. Freedom is just one dimension. There are other dimensions I think most folks care about as well. Health, safety, happiness, wealth, efficiency, quality, fairness, etc. On one extreme end of the freedom spectrum you basically have pure anarchy -- and I bet it's a state with much more violence and fear and rape, etc. and a lot less health, safety, justice, etc. Almost all modern societies have intentionally dialed down on the freedom dimension in order to raise one or more of those other dimensions we also desire. I like freedom, it's those other dimensions I won't want to lose. This is not a radical position, it's pretty mainstream actually.
armandososa 17y ago
The downside is this: after the so-called war on drugs has Mexico has seen an increase in muggery, abduction and extortion. There is a whole criminal working class whose way of living is crime and have no respect for human life. So, if legalization ends the drug traffic business, this people will have to either learn to work honestly or find more creative ways to profit from crimes. The truth is: Mexico is screwed. It's sad because I live here and I love my city and some aspects of México, but I don't want to live here anymore. As soon as I get married I'm going to fly away.
- oldgregg 17y ago
  Man that's sad, but I think you're right. This article is scary. In the US we're naive if we think that's a very tall fence down there.
  - armandososa 17y ago
    What? It is all your fault! You are the freaking consumers! We have the misfortune to be the obliged way for Colombian drug dealers to pass the drug to USA, where the rich dumbasses drug-addicts live and are willing to pay. Now you are going to take the moral high-ground here and say "eew! make that fence taller!"?
    - jorgecastillo 17y ago
      This is not just caused because of the USA. We also have addicts that increase the demand for drugs in Mexico. No one is putting a gun in the head of this people to become drug traffickers. People in Mexico are poor but I don't see anyone that is not a drug trafficker dying of hunger because they don't have money. This people just like the easy live they can get by becoming drug traffickers. This criminal culture in Mexico is a very complex issue and it's not like it can be magically fixed if the USA and Mexico legalize drugs. To fix this we need to make profound changes in all aspects of our culture & society and it will take time if it ever happens. I believe in sovereignty. The USA can do whatever it wants in its territory same as China(Google respect local laws or GTFO) same as Mexico.
- 17y ago
Aetius 17y ago
Many people stand to lose quite a lot. Decriminalizing weed is like fixing the mainframe program bug. Sure you were hired to stamp it out, but in the process discovered that you had a monopoly on the knowledge, and you quite liked the life of "unsuccessful" bug fixer and wealthy charlatan. I am primarily speaking of Politicians who always have a vote-profitable story in the form of drug seizures, arrests, et al., but also the Federal Government - far too addicted (no pun intended) to the billions of dollars appropriated to fight this so called War On Drugs - to ever end it. My guess is you will continue to see the passive-aggressive Ad Council ads for at least another decade.
rick888 17y ago
"Please legalize all drugs while banning all middlemen with prior convictions and requiring they be US-made." Unless we have tort reform, I don't think this is a good idea. People still sue the cigarette companies even though it is a well known fact that cigarettes cause cancer. Drugs like heroine and meth are very addictive and some people might decide to blame the government, which will tie up our court systems. I also find it a little funny to want the government to legalize substances which have more negative health benefits than positive.
- grannyg00se 17y ago
  There are many legalized substances which have more negative health benefits than positive. In fact, there are government subsidized substances that fit that description. Thinking about articles from yesterday, sugar and HFCS come to mind. Whether something is good for you or not doesn't qualify as a reason to make it illegal. Adults should still be able to choose for themselves what they wish to consume. Though I do agree, once common perception has revealed knowledge of ill effects, suing the government because something is legal should not be an option.
- orangecat 17y ago
  I also find it a little funny to want the government to legalize substances which have more negative health benefits than positive. Put the Twinkie down and come out with your hands up.
  - rick888 17y ago
    "Put the Twinkie down and come out with your hands up." Are you actually trying to compare a twinkie to meth?
  - mkramlich 17y ago
    Funny but I think your point is wrong. :) Here's how I back that up. Assume you have a teenage daughter. Now assume your daughter goes to a party and the host gives her either: a Twinkie or some meth As a parent, would you not mind if it was meth? Do you really think the impact on her life, her health, her state of mind, etc. would be about the same whether it's a Twinkie or meth? Or herion? Cocaine? Now how about if it was a Diet Coke? Or a glass of wine? I bet most parents wouldn't worry as much about the Diet Coke (even though it has "drugs" in it, like caffeine). And some may not mind if it was the wine -- especialy if just a small amount -- but of course even then, you would be more worried. I think the difference is in how extreme and how fast the bad effects are, comparing a Twinkie to some meth. And while the Twinkie may not be ideal for your body, it almost assuredly won't make you go crazy essentially -- it won't mess with your mind -- like meth, cocaine, heroin, etc. would. Now if you said, "Put down the meth and the case of 500 Twinkies," that I could agree with you on!
rick888 17y ago
"Better yet we can tax and treat the addicted." I don't think we should be using taxes treat the addicted. Drugs are a personal choice. You have to make that choice to first start using drugs. It could be peer pressure or you just wanted to experiment. I would rather see that tax money go for something more beneficial to society. If we are going to legalize drugs and you make the personal choice to kill yourself, I sure as hell am not going to pay for your treatment. It's exactly this type of thinking that makes me never want legalized drugs in the US. How do we know that legalization reduced crime and drug abuse in Portugal? It could have been any number of things.
- Psyonic 17y ago
  You already pay for police to seek out and arrest drug users, courts to prosecute them, jails to hold them, and parole officers to keep track of them once they are out. Treatment costs a hell of a lot less than that. Sometimes being pragmatic is better than being idealistic.

bjelkeman-again 17y ago

The Economist, argued for the legalisation as the way forward in the article (Mar 5th 2009): "How to stop the drug wars, Prohibition has failed; legalisation is the least bad solution" which is behind the paywall. http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13237193 http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?story... The final paragraph is: "A calculated gamble, or another century of failure? This newspaper first argued for legalisation 20 years ago. Reviewing the evidence again, prohibition seems even more harmful, especially for the poor and weak of the world. Legalisation would not drive gangsters completely out of drugs; as with alcohol and cigarettes, there would be taxes to avoid and rules to subvert. Nor would it automatically cure failed states like Afghanistan. Our solution is a messy one; but a century of manifest failure argues for trying it."

dantheman 17y ago

Just make it legal for people do to do whatever they want to themselves. It's simple and easy. Don't add any regulations they just create criminals out of non criminal behavior.

sliverstorm 17y ago
Yeah! While you're at it, remove all the regulations from alcohol, including regulation on BAC while driving a car. I mean, really, you can do whatever you want to yourself! If driving on public roads at a BAC of 0.35 is criminal, I don't want to be law-abiding!
- stingraycharles 17y ago
  If you were the only person using the public roads, I wouldn't see a problem with it; the problem is that other people are using the roads too, and at that point, you're putting those people at risk.
  - sliverstorm 17y ago
    Exactly. No surprise there. That's my point. I'm sorry if I take a bit of a negative attitude towards it all, I just get tired of people who completely overlook the impacts their own actions may have on other people.
    - metamemetics 17y ago
      Right. Everytime I light up a joint, God causes a drunk driver to hit someone.
      - sliverstorm 17y ago
        You think using mj has no impact or risk on other people? How about driving baked? It's probably not as bad as driving drunk, but when you're on the same road as me piloting a 2-ton missile around me, 'not as bad as wasted' isn't quite good enough. This is exactly the kind of attitude I'm talking about.
        metamemetics 17y ago
        I don't drive when high. And if I did, it would still be a DUI even if marijuana was legal. DUI laws are not whats under debate. You're confounding the issue. And on a side note, I agree it's less harmful than driving drunk and alcohol is legal to possess.
        sliverstorm 17y ago
        i'm not. the parent i first replied to suggested we should remove all regulations, and DUI laws are a regulation.
mkramlich 17y ago
Imagine you have a wife and children, and you live in the world where anybody can do whatever they want "to themselves." So in that world, the people in the houses on either side of you start doing cocoaine, heroin, meth, etc. You revel in their freedom, taking great pride in your liberarian country. Then one night they break in to your house crazed and murder your family. Yeah for freedom! Yeah for letting people do whatever they want! Oh wait...
- dantheman 17y ago
  yeah, because that happens now when people do drugs all over the place... How about instead of made up bogeymen, why don't you look at the horrors the prohibition of drugs has created. 1. Militarization of police 2. Attack on civil liberties 3. Funding illegal organizations, and causing gang crime 4. A gigantic waste of money 5. Ruining countless numbers of lives through incarceration Or perhaps you might want to look at Portugal: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-dr... Or perhaps you'd like to take a look at the hell in mexico that drug prohibition has caused: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/23/mexico-drug-wars-cartels http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/23/mexico-drug-wars... So I have the cause of freedom on my side, as well as all the 2nd and 3rd order effects. Perhaps you should change your position.
  - mkramlich 17y ago
    Actually yes it's happening right now, there's a very high correlation right now with people who do certain kinds of drugs (cocaine, meth, heroin, that sort of thing) and crazy, violent, self-destructive and community-destructive behavior. I for one don't want more of that going on than already is going on. I don't want to live in a world where that's more widespread. 1. The police in my area don't seem militarized. Where in the US are the police militarized? Are you seriously referring to things like tanks, jets, battleships, mortars, or what? In my town, and it appears in most of the rest of Colorado, we have police and they mostly do old fashioned police sorts of things. 2. Attack is a strong word. That also sounds like you're suggesting it's something pervasive. I bet if we did a poll of people, at least here in Colorado, for example, I bet we'd find that at most a very small fraction of 1% of the population will say they feel they have experienced an "attack on [their] civil liberties". Another point I'd add to this is one could make a very strong argument for the position that there is no such thing as some inherent "right" to anything. People do what they can get away with, and it's been happening like that for millions of years, I suspect. Heck, I'd love to have the "right" to do anything I wanted. But in practice, that's not going to happen. And there's that notion of one person's rights end where another's begin. Your right to walk down the street firing a gun ends where my right to walk down the street and not be shot by some idiot, begins. 3. the folks who buy a thing are the ones funding it, I would argue. If you buy illegal drugs, YOU are funding the organization which provided it to you. The government did not. That's a physical fact. Yes, if it was legal, then you might be buying it from a different source, and then YOU still would be the one funding it. 4. "gigantic waste of money" -- I cannot refute this point, merely say it's a question of whether one thinks that the benefits of the situation outweigh the disadvantages. Do the positives outweigh the negatives? Are their better ways of achieving the same goal, for less cost? Perhaps, I don't now. But if your position is that nothing positive has come from it, I think that's a harder case to make. 5. again I think this is a case of individuals making poor choices and ruining their OWN lives -- through their OWN actions. The government did not come along and ruin their life, against their will. It's also not clear to me that in every case where an individual buys or sells an illegal drug, and gets busted for it, that when they are processed by the legal system their lives are all automatically ruined -- that's a pretty extreme statement. However, in the other direction, I'd argue that when people CHOOSE to use/consume/inhale/inject those hard, illegal drugs they very often do ruin their own lives, or set them on the road to ruin. They also make the world worse for their families, friends, and communities. There's a lot of evidence to support that position. Hey, if I could live in a world where all the hard, "bad" drugs were legal and easily available AND also live in a world that has not turned into a violent, anarchic, ghetto-like hellhole (due to bad drug behavior & culture) I would like that. On your Mexico point... counter-point: there are other countries where the same drugs are also prohibited, and they don't have the serious violent drug gang/war problem as Mexico. And as you pointed out, there are also countries that have looser drug laws, and they have less problems (apparently, in some dimensions) than Mexico or the US. So perhaps the stronger correlation is with the type of culture, and the type of people, and the types of lifestyles, choices, intellect, etc. that exist in those different areas. All I know for sure is that there's a high correlation between hard drug use and with behavior that is destructive to self and community, and so I don't want to live in a world where there's a larger percentage of people doing that. This is not an academic argument, it's a practical one, based on seeing and experiencing and knowing real people in my life and community that have went down the path of hard drugs -- even if those drugs were legal, it wouldn't change their effects on mind and body. Freedom is just one dimension. There are other dimensions I think most folks care about as well. Health, safety, happiness, wealth, efficiency, quality, fairness, etc. On one extreme end of the freedom spectrum you basically have pure anarchy -- and I bet it's a state with much more violence and fear and rape, etc. and a lot less health, safety, justice, etc. Almost all modern societies have intentionally dialed down on the freedom dimension in order to raise one or more of those other dimensions we also desire. I like freedom, it's those other dimensions I won't want to lose. This is not a radical position, it's pretty mainstream actually.

armandososa 17y ago

The downside is this: after the so-called war on drugs has Mexico has seen an increase in muggery, abduction and extortion. There is a whole criminal working class whose way of living is crime and have no respect for human life. So, if legalization ends the drug traffic business, this people will have to either learn to work honestly or find more creative ways to profit from crimes. The truth is: Mexico is screwed. It's sad because I live here and I love my city and some aspects of México, but I don't want to live here anymore. As soon as I get married I'm going to fly away.

oldgregg 17y ago
Man that's sad, but I think you're right. This article is scary. In the US we're naive if we think that's a very tall fence down there.
- armandososa 17y ago
  What? It is all your fault! You are the freaking consumers! We have the misfortune to be the obliged way for Colombian drug dealers to pass the drug to USA, where the rich dumbasses drug-addicts live and are willing to pay. Now you are going to take the moral high-ground here and say "eew! make that fence taller!"?
  - jorgecastillo 17y ago
    This is not just caused because of the USA. We also have addicts that increase the demand for drugs in Mexico. No one is putting a gun in the head of this people to become drug traffickers. People in Mexico are poor but I don't see anyone that is not a drug trafficker dying of hunger because they don't have money. This people just like the easy live they can get by becoming drug traffickers. This criminal culture in Mexico is a very complex issue and it's not like it can be magically fixed if the USA and Mexico legalize drugs. To fix this we need to make profound changes in all aspects of our culture & society and it will take time if it ever happens. I believe in sovereignty. The USA can do whatever it wants in its territory same as China(Google respect local laws or GTFO) same as Mexico.
17y ago

Aetius 17y ago

Many people stand to lose quite a lot. Decriminalizing weed is like fixing the mainframe program bug. Sure you were hired to stamp it out, but in the process discovered that you had a monopoly on the knowledge, and you quite liked the life of "unsuccessful" bug fixer and wealthy charlatan. I am primarily speaking of Politicians who always have a vote-profitable story in the form of drug seizures, arrests, et al., but also the Federal Government - far too addicted (no pun intended) to the billions of dollars appropriated to fight this so called War On Drugs - to ever end it. My guess is you will continue to see the passive-aggressive Ad Council ads for at least another decade.

rick888 17y ago

"Please legalize all drugs while banning all middlemen with prior convictions and requiring they be US-made." Unless we have tort reform, I don't think this is a good idea. People still sue the cigarette companies even though it is a well known fact that cigarettes cause cancer. Drugs like heroine and meth are very addictive and some people might decide to blame the government, which will tie up our court systems. I also find it a little funny to want the government to legalize substances which have more negative health benefits than positive.

grannyg00se 17y ago
There are many legalized substances which have more negative health benefits than positive. In fact, there are government subsidized substances that fit that description. Thinking about articles from yesterday, sugar and HFCS come to mind. Whether something is good for you or not doesn't qualify as a reason to make it illegal. Adults should still be able to choose for themselves what they wish to consume. Though I do agree, once common perception has revealed knowledge of ill effects, suing the government because something is legal should not be an option.
orangecat 17y ago
I also find it a little funny to want the government to legalize substances which have more negative health benefits than positive. Put the Twinkie down and come out with your hands up.
- rick888 17y ago
  "Put the Twinkie down and come out with your hands up." Are you actually trying to compare a twinkie to meth?
- mkramlich 17y ago
  Funny but I think your point is wrong. :) Here's how I back that up. Assume you have a teenage daughter. Now assume your daughter goes to a party and the host gives her either: a Twinkie or some meth As a parent, would you not mind if it was meth? Do you really think the impact on her life, her health, her state of mind, etc. would be about the same whether it's a Twinkie or meth? Or herion? Cocaine? Now how about if it was a Diet Coke? Or a glass of wine? I bet most parents wouldn't worry as much about the Diet Coke (even though it has "drugs" in it, like caffeine). And some may not mind if it was the wine -- especialy if just a small amount -- but of course even then, you would be more worried. I think the difference is in how extreme and how fast the bad effects are, comparing a Twinkie to some meth. And while the Twinkie may not be ideal for your body, it almost assuredly won't make you go crazy essentially -- it won't mess with your mind -- like meth, cocaine, heroin, etc. would. Now if you said, "Put down the meth and the case of 500 Twinkies," that I could agree with you on!

rick888 17y ago

"Better yet we can tax and treat the addicted." I don't think we should be using taxes treat the addicted. Drugs are a personal choice. You have to make that choice to first start using drugs. It could be peer pressure or you just wanted to experiment. I would rather see that tax money go for something more beneficial to society. If we are going to legalize drugs and you make the personal choice to kill yourself, I sure as hell am not going to pay for your treatment. It's exactly this type of thinking that makes me never want legalized drugs in the US. How do we know that legalization reduced crime and drug abuse in Portugal? It could have been any number of things.

Psyonic 17y ago
You already pay for police to seek out and arrest drug users, courts to prosecute them, jails to hold them, and parole officers to keep track of them once they are out. Treatment costs a hell of a lot less than that. Sometimes being pragmatic is better than being idealistic.