It should at least be completely decriminalized.

Some people get really goofy or paranoid or incapacitated by it, but most just get to enjoy things from a different perspective. I know one of the biggest reasons it's still illegal is because you can't exactly get an accurate blood-THC level like you can with alcohol, and this makes it difficult to keep the few idiots there are from driving (albeit slowly) dangerously.

There actually are some "DUID" laws in some states. I live in WV, I don't know how much longer it will be illegal here. Hemp farming has been legal for 5 years, hopefully it will not be long. I mean, Ohio has decriminalized it to up to 100 grams without charge.

DUID?

Elaborate, if you don't mind.

Alls I know is it stays in your system for around 30 days.

Driving under influence of drugs, something like that. I read it on a marijuana law reform site. If you didn't know, i have never used marijuana and I'm 18. I have used been drunk a few times, yes, literally just a few (4 to be exact) and i got pretty sick the second time. I think it was due to me not used to drinking much as all I had was to 3 shots of liquor and a 5-6 cans of beer. My point is that If alcohol is legal there is no reason for marijuana to be illegal, due to the fact that you can't overdose on it.

-*gives a round of applause*-

Now, if only lawmakers saw it in the same light. BTW, mixing shots and beer can make early anyone sick depending on the circumstances. It's best to stick with one inebriate. Be careful, no matter what you do.

No, it should be illegal. It's harmful and most people that use it are irresponsible. Just like booze.

I'm not gonna have some stonned idiot get behind the wheel and indanger the lives of innocent people. "Oh but there's nothing wrong with pot derrr" Oh go to heII!

I'm assuming 'derr' means you can't be bothered to 'look things up' on the 'internet', nor can youread others' replies properly. I mean, I know it's tough and all....

Someone's made a biased poll...

Anyways, NOTHING affects only you. If something affects your behavior (such as marijuana), and you're in the same room as another person, then you're going to affect them. I've seen and been around weed heads, and I can honestly say that it's a very comforting experience. I've seen one get into a rage and smash a kid's nose in.

Sure, sure...Marijuana only affects you...

"I've seen one get into a rage and smash a kid's nose in."

That wasn't the pot, that was just an idiot.

Tek, your cheesy little remarks will get you nowhere here.

"That wasn't the pot, that was just an idiot."

No, that was the pot turning someone into a bigger idiot. I know people who smoke it all the time. They're addicted to the stuff and when they aren't high, they act like an asshole all the time. I know a guy who thinks it's funny to hit people when they're high.

And yes, second hand pot smoke can get you high.

Driving while high is not as dangerous as driving drunk, still a bad idea though, biggest problem I can see is that it may slow reaction time. Another thing that saying someone punched a kids nose in based on marijuana is ignorant. That's like saying "I know a guy who drank an energy drink beat then sh*t out of somebody, ban energy drinks!". Come on, next you'll say it's more addictive than cigarettes, it's not, cigarettes are far more addictive because the tobacco companies add literally hundreds of chemicals to it, to make you a smoker for life.

It should not be illegal. Like many substances, it can alter behaviors. But you punish someone when they do something wrong.

Plus, if it were legal (and other drugs as well) the prices would be substantially lower and therefore the associated crimes would be lower.

What a shock! WinterBorn the liberal disagrees with me. Hmmmm, I wonder why?..........

"Driving while high is not as dangerous as driving drunk, still a bad idea though"

Key words there are not AS dangerous. Still makes it dangerous people. And I don't want the chances of innocent people getting killed by high drivers increased, just because it isn't as bad as booze, which is legal.

"biggest problem I can see is that it may slow reaction time."

Well, that makes it soooo much better. I mean a few seconds don't really matter when you're going 50 mph.

"Another thing that saying someone punched a kids nose in based on marijuana is ignorant. That's like saying "I know a guy who drank an energy drink beat then shit out of somebody, ban energy drinks!"."

When you call me ignorant, all it does is remind me of that South Park episode with Michael Jackson. You know what? I'm sure people are just ignorant when they say alcohol turns people into idiots that think it's funny to hit people. Good point Shredder, they are ignorant.

"Come on, next you'll say it's more addictive than cigarettes, it's not, cigarettes are far more addictive because the tobacco companies add literally hundreds of chemicals to it, to make you a smoker for life."

Key words there are MORE addictive, meaning you admit pot can be very adictive. Fact, MJ has 4 times more cancer causing tar than a ciggarete. But I'm sure WinterBorn will come on and say it's a massive consiracy like the birth control thing a few months back.

I entirely agree with with KingRaw. Driving while stoned is very dangerous for everybody.

Hence all drugs must be made illegal.

And since having sex (either alone or in company), eating ice cream, using cellphones, doing crosswords, shaving, applying make-up, talking to passengers, typing on a computer and a few other things done while driving are all equally dangerous, well... sex, ice cream, cellphones, crosswords, shavers, make-up and, most of all, talking an typing must be made illegal too.

What a shock, WinterBorn believes in the Libertarian platform on drugs.

Yes, driving while under the influence of drugs will make you more likely to cause an accident.

So bust them for DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE, but don't use that as an excuse for maintaining a set of laws that are wrong. Tens of thousands of people are in prison, their lives ruined, because they chose to smoke pot. Not because they killed anyone or were driving while stoned. And the mandatory sentencing for drug offenses means someone busted for possesion of pot cannot get early parole, but murderers, and violent criminals CAN get early parole.

If the concern is about saving lives on the roads then enforce the speed limits.

If the concern is about saving lives on the roads then ban the things that have been PROVEN to cause the most distractions - cellphones.

Just an FYI, the true conservative wants less government intrusion into our lives, not more. The true conservative wants to promote personal freedoms, not restrict them. The true conservative knows that freedom is not achieved by creating more laws but by allowing people to make choices and live with them.

"What a shock, WinterBorn believes in the Libertarian platform on drugs."

What next? Crystal meth should be legal? If you open the door on one dangerous drug, then why not another?

"So bust them for DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE, but don't use that as an excuse for maintaining a set of laws that are wrong."

So you're willing to risk the lives of innocent people, including your family over some ethics?

"Tens of thousands of people are in prison, their lives ruined, because they chose to smoke pot. Not because they killed anyone or were driving while stoned. And the mandatory sentencing for drug offenses means someone busted for possesion of pot cannot get early parole, but murderers, and violent criminals CAN get early parole."

You've blown hot air before. Give me some examples or else I'll assume that is all crap.

"If the concern is about saving lives on the roads then enforce the speed limits."

Speed limits aren't the problem.

"If the concern is about saving lives on the roads then ban the things that have been PROVEN to cause the most distractions - cellphones."

And pot too. You said it yourself,"Yes, driving while under the influence of drugs will make you more likely to cause an accident."

"Just an FYI, the true conservative wants less government intrusion into our lives, not more..."

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAA! Conservatives want less control? AHAHAHAHAHA

I am not risking innocent lives over ethics, I am talking about freedom. And that is always worth the risk.

Blown smoke? Proof? The mandatory drug sentences are well known. If you are sentenced under most drug laws you are automatically ineligible for early release or parole. Whereas murderers are often given early release and parole. Look it up.

Speed limits are not the problem? I didn't say speed limits are the problem. I said they should be enforced. They are currently not being enforced. And according to the National Traffic Safety Bureau, speeding is one of the top causes of vehicle accidents.

And if you will look at the history of the conservative movement, not just the Goerge W. Bush version we now have, you'll see that what I have said is true. Conservatives want more freedom and smaller government.

"I am not risking innocent lives over ethics, I am talking about freedom. And that is always worth the risk."

Then why not make crack legal? Hey, it's freedom.

"Blown smoke? Proof? The mandatory drug sentences are well known. If you are sentenced under most drug laws you are automatically ineligible for early release or parole. Whereas murderers are often given early release and parole. Look it up."

That's code word for "I have no proof" Links please.

"Speed limits are not the problem? I didn't say speed limits are the problem. I said they should be enforced. They are currently not being enforced. And according to the National Traffic Safety Bureau, speeding is one of the top causes of vehicle accidents."

I don't know what you're talking about? Down here in Florida, the cops crack down on speeding.

"And if you will look at the history of the conservative movement, not just the Goerge W. Bush version we now have, you'll see that what I have said is true. Conservatives want more freedom and smaller government."

That's no cause I want to follow. God bless George W. Bush.

No, thats code for "I have neither the time nor the inclination to do the research for you".

Cops may crack down occasionally in areas. But try driving I-75 and tell me that everyone is going 70 mph.

You may prefer GWB's version of conservatism, but I do not. If you want to learn about what the conservative movement actually should be, try listening to Neal Boortz. Boortz is one of the top 5 most listened to radio talk show hosts. And he is a staunch Libertarian.

I do not believe that more laws create more freedom. (only an idiot could make that leap)

"No, thats code for "I have neither the time nor the inclination to do the research for you"."

You know, for someone who's ALWAYS on Gametalk, you'd think you would have the free time to give me a link to a few examples. But hey, you don't have the time to contact your friends here to prove me wrong or the time to show me a simple photo of your face. But you do have the time to travel 30+ miles for a fight. I think you are blowing hot air again.

"Cops may crack down occasionally in areas. But try driving I-75 and tell me that everyone is going 70 mph."

70 in a 65 mph zone. Shocking.... Usually when someone mentions speeding, they mean people going 50 in a 35mph zone.

I am one Gametalk a couple of times a day. The rest of that is simply nonsense from the tripe we have been through before.

You see quite a few people pulled over on the interstate. And troopers pretty much ignore anyone going only 10 mph over the speed limit.

Think back to your trip to Atlanta, how many people blew by you? I was making that run a couple of times a month. My speed varied between 65 and 78. Plenty of people flew by me like I was standing still.

Its not 70 in a 65, its more like 90 or 100 in a 70 zone.

But the point is still, you don't make laws baning a substance because of its effect on driving. Otherwise ban alcohol, benadryl, claritin and all the cough medicines out there.

"But the point is still, you don't make laws baning a substance because of its effect on driving. Otherwise ban alcohol, benadryl, claritin and all the cough medicines out there."

I will!

You will? You mean you will try.

Actually, the marijuana laws are either being relaxed or left alone. None, that I know about, are getting any tougher.

So, little by little, its getting better for personal freedoms.

Hey, maybe you'll get lucky and we'll all tone it down on the child porn laws. I mean come on, who does it hurt anyway......

I thought you'd like that remark. Child porn shouldn't be legal because it hurts children. MaryJ shouldn't be legal because it hurts the people that use it and anyone around them like children. Same with alchohol and Crystal meth. But we could sit here and say a lot of BS. "Oh, child porn doesn't really hurt kids. I bet they enjoy it." or "Marijuana doesn't really hurt people man. It's not bad for you dude. It won't affect anyone around me"

I have no problem with laws that make it illegal to do anything to another person that harms them.

Child porn harms the child, and they have no choice and aren't mature enough to make the decision for themselves.

Smoking marijuana does not harm anyone else. Now, if you want to bust people for what they do to another person while on marijuana, I am behind that 100%.

But restricting everything that MIGHT cause someone harm, or cause someone to harm someone is ridiculous.

Lets ban sugar, alcohol, car stereos, cell phones, air conditioning, ......the list is endless.

But the fact that the government has become a babysitter protecting idiots from themselves is shame. Its not the job of the government. And it ends up costing many people ruined lives because of something that MIGHT have happened.

"Child porn harms the child, and they have no choice and aren't mature enough to make the decision for themselves.

Smoking marijuana does not harm anyone else. Now, if you want to bust people for what they do to another person while on marijuana, I am behind that 100%."

Ok, then JUST owning child porn should be ok for you. JUST owning it and pumping off to it does not harm anyone else. Now if you pull a HateCena and use the "By owning it, you support it and give the molesters the power", then I'll just say "By smoking pot and owning it, you support the drug dealers that most likely drive under the influence and sell it to 11 year olds" And if you say "What about people that grow it?", then I'll say "What about the people that find a random photo of child porn?"

By purchasing the child porn you DO support those who make it. And THAT supports harming children. You are, in effect, paying people to abuse children.

By purchasing marijuana, if it were legal, you would be supporting commerce and farmers. The dealers who sell to 11 year olds are a product of it being illegal.

"By purchasing marijuana, if it were legal, you would be supporting commerce and farmers."

But it's not becuase it's harmful like crack. So that point doesn't matter.

"The dealers who sell to 11 year olds are a product of it being illegal."

But they're the same ones who grow massive amounts of it, meaning they are the farmers you speak of.

"By purchasing the child porn you DO support those who make it. And THAT supports harming children. You are, in effect, paying people to abuse children."

Same logic with eating meat. If you purchace it, you support the murderings of millions of innocent creatures. You are, in effect, paying people to kill animals.

Raw, if you think the people who sell marijuana to 11 year olds are the ones growing it, you are simply naive.

And there is a distinct difference between cows being slaughtered and children being abused. Namely, that is why the cows were raised. That is certainly not why the children were raised.

Besides, I eat meat and I usually don't pay someone else to murder them for me. I hunt for my own. I actually give some of mine away, so others don't have to pay anyone to murder a poor defenseless cow.

"Raw, if you think the people who sell marijuana to 11 year olds are the ones growing it, you are simply naive."

Really? So who are the ones, growing massive amounts then? Just good ol' liberals who love the stuff? No. You(Most people) don't grow hundreds and hundreds of marijuana plants without selling the stuff for profit. And who do you sell it to? Anyone who has money! 50 year olds like you or people that are the same age as your daughter! They are the main ones so they are being supported by people who smoke pot!

"And there is a distinct difference between cows being slaughtered and children being abused. Namely, that is why the cows were raised. That is certainly not why the children were raised."

Not all kids are raised to have a normal life. And yes, there is a differece between eating meat and child porn. No kidding.....really? You can sit there and cherrypick all you want like Keith Olberman, but it doesn't take away this simple fact. By purchasing child porn, you support child molesters. So using that same logic, by purchasing meat, you support the unessicary killings of millions of innocent creatures. No way around it. And saying,"Oh, but killing animals and child porn are not the same exact thing" You know what? NOTHING IS! It'd be like you saying that rednecks that beat up muslims are just as bad as rednecks that beat up blacks. And then I'd say,"Blacks and muslims are not the same thing." Gee, you think!

"Besides, I eat meat and I usually don't pay someone else to murder them for me. I hunt for my own. I actually give some of mine away, so others don't have to pay anyone to murder a poor defenseless cow."

But by owning it, you still support it. Just like owning child porn that you had no part of making, supports the pervs that made it. And you are still murdering a poor defensless cow.

Another big difference is that I want all child m0lesters in prison or dead. I have no problem at all with people raising cattle for slaughter or people hunting animals.

I see a huge difference between animals and people. Especially domesticated livestock.

Domesticated livestock would not survive in the wild. They ONLY survive because people raise them for food. Its a simply thing.

And just to clarify, I would bet that almost all the people who grow large quantities of marijuana would sell it to the dealers. The dealers would probably sell it to other dealers who would then sell it to the kids.

By making it legal, you would remove the dealers from the equation.

Why risk selling your product illegaly when you can get the same profit selling it legally?

"I have no problem at all with people raising cattle for slaughter or people hunting animals."

So you have no problem with murdering innocent creatures but child molesters are a different story. Doesn't add up.

"I see a huge difference between animals and people."

The difference between the right to live and the right to die for your superior beings? That's bad man. Real bad.

"Domesticated livestock would not survive in the wild."

And that means we should kill them because......

"And just to clarify, I would bet that almost all the people who grow large quantities of marijuana would sell it to the dealers. The dealers would probably sell it to other dealers who would then sell it to the kids."

But that makes you responcible for it then.

In the same book of the bible that calls homosexuality an abomination, there are instructions for how to slaughter cattle for food and how to slaughter them for sacrifice.

Unless you are going to argue with the bible??

I am not supporting them, because I don't buy marijuana. But if it were legalized, the farmers who grew it would be supported by people who purchased it.

Just like people support people who grow hops that are made into beer. There are no pushers selling it to 11 year olds. Because its legal, the money is made legally and the product is used by adults.

"In the same book of the bible that calls homosexuality an abomination, there are instructions for how to slaughter cattle for food and how to slaughter them for sacrifice.

Unless you are going to argue with the bible??"

I will. The Bible is a book that was written by bigots, and murdering pedophiles.

"I am not supporting them, because I don't buy marijuana. But if it were legalized, the farmers who grew it would be supported by people who purchased it."

And the drug dealers that grow it now, are the "farmers".

"Just like people support people who grow hops that are made into beer. There are no pushers selling it to 11 year olds. Because its legal, the money is made legally and the product is used by adults."

People don't sell beer to kids like Marijuana.

Should the retard teach the idiot to spell "communist"?

Raw, you are trying to say that the same dealers would be operating in marijuana were legal?

Sure. They are now and that means if you smoke it, then you support them.

Raw, if marijuana were legalized, there would be no more dealers on the street. It would be sold like alcohol. Actually, fewer kids would have access to it if it were legal than now.

Most kids have harder time getting alcohol than they do getting marijuana or other drugs.

Legalize it, tax it to high heaven, and control it in the open.

The dealers would be gone, just like the speakeasy died when prohibition ended.

And I'm sure that only consentual kids would be in child porn if it were made legal.....

Should the retard teach the idiot to spell "communist"?

Are you implying that you're the retard, WinterBorn?

I am not implying anything. I was simply replying to the post.

What labels a troll puts to my name is inconsequential.

Weed will never be legalized for the simple fact that the government cant properly monopolize it. They make more money encarcerating people for it. It's simple math.

WRONG.

Incarcerating people doesn't raise money for the government, it loses them money. Which means they have to raise the taxes, and WE lose money.

I personally would never smoke weed, period. Why? It kills brain cells and makes you generally unpleasant to be around. I should know; I've got a friend who used to smoke weed on a regular basis and until I convinced him to quit.

It has nothing to do with what my God or my government tells me; if I wanted to try it that badly, I would. So, I think it SHOULD be legalized, but like WB said, tax it to high heaven, restrict the age you can buy it(21, I figure), and make some money for the govt. off it; maybe they'll stop raising the taxes on everything else!

Here's what someone has to say about this.

Discussion

I. Their Argument

Proponents of legalization suggest that the experiences of countries such as Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Switzerland prove the efficacy of legalizing or decriminalizing various types of illegal drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and marijuana. They maintain that because such drugs are legal, these countries have fewer addicts and less drug-related crime.

II. Our Argument

The statements of those who propagate legalization here are empirically untrue. As we discuss each country in turn, it will be shown that legalization did not work in any of them.

A. Great Britain

With the report of a government commission known as the Brain Committee of 1964, England instituted a policy whereby doctors could prescribe heroin so long as they followed certain treatment criteria.47 Previously in England, doctors could prescribe heroin much like any other opiate (such as morphine). This allowed a few unscrupulous doctors to sell ungodly amounts of heroin to members of the black market.48 Consequently, it was believed that if heroin were offered at medical clinics according to stringent rules and regulations, addicts would come to these clinics to seek treatment and eventually would overcome their habit.

As of 1983, however, England began to phase out these programs of clinically supplied heroin in favor of methadone treatment.49 Why? First, according to the reputable British physician journal Lancet, the number of addicts increased 100% between 1970 and 1980.50 A disproportionate number of these new addicts were between the ages of sixteen and seventeen.51 Second, only twenty percent of all of the addicts in England belonged to the clinical programs.52 At first blush, this fact seems strange

- why would addicts choose not to participate in a program wherein they get free methadone? The answer probably lies in the fact that methadone does not produce the high that heroin does. Also, addicts probably did not care for the mandatory treatment and rehabilitation facets of the clinical programs. Whatever the reason, by 1985 England had 80,000 heroin addicts, the vast majority of whom wen not in treatment.53

A third reason why England began to abolish its clinical heroin program was the fact that not only were there few people, in them, but the programs themselves did not work. According to the British Medical Journal, more addicts left the program because of criminal convictions than because of treatment.54 Fourth, even with the clinical programs, heroin addicts had a death rate twenty-six times the average population. Finally, even when the programs were in operation, Scotland Yard had to increase its narcotics division 100% in order to cope with the increased crime rate.56

To summarize, the British experience with decriminalized heroin in the clinical context was a dismal failure. When experts from British Columbia were debating whether to create a similar program, they made the following conclusions that are so important as to deserve to be quoted at length:

While some success is claimed in terms of reducing the incidence of young users, the following findings have also been noted:

1) The British approach has failed to attract a majority of addicts;

2) Many registered addicts continue to turn to illicit sources of

drugs;

3) Many registered addicts do not decrease their dosage over time;

4) Many registered addicts continue to be involved in criminal activity;

5) Many registered addicts are chronically unemployed or do not earn enough to look after themselves;

6) The death rate of registered addicts is much higher than that of the general population and may be higher than that of North American addicts;

7) Since 1960, there has been a dramatic increase in the English addict population;

8) The black market for heroin continues to thrive;

9) Law enforcement appears to remain a necessary, costly and complex control measure.

In view of the above, it is felt that the application of the British approach to British Columbia would present serious dangers.57

B. The Netherlands

Proponents of legalization almost certainly would cite Amsterdam as the drug Mecca of the Western world. Anyone may go into the restaurants in this city and order marijuana and hashish from a menu; further, heroin and cocaine have been decriminalized for all practical purposes. The police simply leave the users alone. Consequently, health officials estimate that Amsterdam has 7,000 addicts, 20% of whom are foreigners.58 These addicts are responsible for 80% of all property crime in the city, thus necessitating that Amsterdam maintain a police presence far greater than those of cities of comparable size in the United States.59

The Dutch have not raised one dollar in tax revenue from drug sales, and drug violators account for 50 percent of the Dutch prison population, a higher proportion than in the United States.60 The Netherlands is the most crime-prone nation in Europe and most drug addicts live on state welfare payments and by committing crimes.61 Nationwide, the number of reported crimes increased to 1.3 million in 1992 from. 812,000 in 1981.62 Faced with public disgust at home over soaring drug related crime and pressure from other European Community countries to strengthen drug laws, Dutch authorities are implementing an aggressive program to reduce drug-linked crimes and disturbances and show new teeth in combatting illegal drug sales.63 Eberhard van der Laan, leader Of the Social Democrats in the Amsterdam City Council says, "People are absolutely fed up with all the troubles caused by drug addicts - car windows broken, noise, whole streets almost given up to the drug problem."64 Legalization advocates claim that marijuana use in Netherlands has not increased since the laws were liberalized, but the number of Amsterdam drug cafes rose from 30 to over 300 in one decade. They also fail to note that daily marijuana use by U.S. youth has declined by 75 percent.65

C. Switzerland

Much like Amsterdam, Switzerland until recently followed a policy of decriminalization. Indeed, a city park in the town of Zurich for many years was allowed to be a haven for drug users - police simply would ignore the problem by claiming that it was better to have all the addicts in one place rather than having them roam throughout the entire city.66 Unsurprisingly, in February of 1992 Switzerland ended this experiment with decriminalization after experiencing an unacceptable increase in use, violence, crime and health costs and consequences.67 Specifically, the number of addicts residing at the park (called Platzspitz) jumped from a few hundred in 1987 to over 20,000, by early 1992.68 Approximately 20% of these addicts were foreigners who came to Zurich to take advantage of the city's lax drug laws.69 In deciding to close the park, city officials cited the increased incidence of crime and prostitution--as Andres Oehler, a municipal spokesperson stated, "it was felt that the situation had got out of control in every sense."70

D. Spain

Since 1983 in Spain, it has been legal to use, but not sell, cocaine and heroin. Recently, however,

Spanish officials have begun a crack-down on drug pushers due to a dramatic increase in the addiction rate.71 Unsurprisingly, Spain and Italy, which also legalized use of cocaine and heroin, have the highest rates of both drug use and overdose of all European countries.72

E. China

Lest we forget the lessons of history, consider that in the late 1800's, opium was legal in China. By 1900, ninety million Chinese were addicted to the drug, and it took fifty years of repressive police measures and rehabilitation to correct the problem.73 Today, opium and other addictive drugs are illegal.74

F. Japan

In the 1950's, Japan was faced with an epidemic of amphetamine use that created half a million addicts. Through socialization and policies aimed at both reducing supply and demand, the number of addicts was decreased to a few thousand within four years.75 A heroin epidemic involving thousands of addicts was dealt with successfully in the 1960's using the same measures. 76

G. Other countries

Throughout recent history, numerous other countries have attempted legalizing or decriminalizing drugs, all meeting with the same harmful results. In Egypt in the 1920's, an unrestricted supply of cocaine and heroin created an epidemic that eventually resulted in the strict prosecution of all addicts.77 In Thailand and Iran, countries that traditionally have had cheap and unrestricted sources of narcotics, the addiction rates have been and continue to be high.78 Finally, the Republic of Singapore had to resort to strict law enforcement and mandatory rehabilitation in order to overcome a heroin epidemic.79

Given the experiences of countries such as Great Britain, Switzerland, The Netherlands, China, Japan, Spain, Egypt, Iran, and Thailand, it is little wonder why countries that traditionally have had lenient drug laws are all moving in the direction of illegalization. Undoubtedly, the danger that drug legalization presents was foremost on the minds of the numerous countries - the United States included - that signed the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971. And such danger also is why the International Narcotics Control Board for the United Nations concluded in 1992 that "legalization advocates have not yet presented a sufficiently comprehensive, coherent or viable alternative to the present system of international drug abuse control.