Harrison Narcotic Act Of 1914

I am not a user of street drugs. I do not engage in marijuana use over a period of three years, but more than 20 years. I used tobacco during a period of 12 years. Today, my drug is limited to seasonal allergy medicine, a daily habit of caffeine and alcoholic beverages shortly. Yes, tobacco, caffeine and alcohol are drugs. Alcohol is just as intoxicating drugs in the street. Nicotine is more addictive than some drugs on the street. Caffeine is becoming stronger and stronger.

I do not seek to promote the use of street drugs. They create health problems in your body, destroy your moral sense and ruins around you. I have no pity for the users, and I do not buy the argument that addiction is a disease. The government should discourage the use of these drugs, but not prohibit. The prohibition does not work with alcohol and do not work with drugs of the street. Prohibition is responsible for street violence. He limited the offer price high enough for suppliers to engage in violent criminal behavior and imprisonment risk.

Throughout its history, the ban has cost us billions of dollars. Billions of dollars to the cost of bloated bureaucracy, direct foreign aid, military operations in South America, border control, internal control, prison construction and operations, legal expenses, medical expenses, the creation of paramilitary police, crimes against property costs, those costs by parties to drive many of our society.

If you're a conservative and remember that liberals and trillions of dollars they spent on public assistance has not mad a difference, please take a look at your moral drugs holy war . As the well-being, the ban exacerbates it seeks to solve. We criticize the Liberals to show their compassion by not supporting a program such as welfare as we present our tough on crime by supporting a failing war on drugs.

The ban is a violation of your privacy. I realize the Constitution does not give us the right to privacy expressed, but it is implicit in our culture (abortion can not use that argument. You're dealing with another life.). The government should not get involved in your personal behavior, unless you put others in danger (eg, driving under the influence). The government used the war against drugs to confiscate private property (forfeiture of property). The government used the war against drugs to control your personal finances (the laws on money laundering) and to confiscate more taxes. The government hates difficult to track cash transactions and adopt legislation disguised as anti-drug laws to try to regulate cash transactions. I should be able to enter and leave this country with a suitcase full of money, without being studied. It's my money.

SOME HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Street drugs cause health problems, but how are they distributed? Drug abuse destroys the lives of some users, but the size of a problem of society is it? Consider the latest drug hysteria that you have heard more of methamphetamine. It seems that all adolescents in the country will be hooked on crystal meth in 2010. Of course, drug abuse and methamphetamine meth labs are a public danger, but have not we heard this story? The last invasion of our society was Oxycontin (hillbilly heroin) in 90 years. Before that, he was the crack in the 80s. I remember more and more in the 60s and early 70s, fearing my older brothers who become addicted to LSD, heroin or angel dust. Remember "Reefer Madness? This is a film in 30 years about the dangers of marijuana. They have exaggerated the effects of marijuana is not even close to the power of things is there now . The children have been turned into madmen.