wow! One thing I agree on is to legalize Marijuana for these simple reasons only... Many of our youths who are standing on the corners selling will not be dying over one less drug in the streets... $$$$$ will be save on building more prisons/jails,housings.because we know there is more drugs/weed in the cells,,, as it is on the corners in the U.S/ Mexcio....Many other countries will be out of business, due to the fact it will no longer be in great demand here. As far as potency, If it was legal, every one who smokes would be growing it in their own back yard on in their own house, so you would not have to worry about upping penalties, They could be more focused on how to STOP CUTTING $$$$$$$ IN MENTAL HEALTH/ADDICTIONS, AND GIVE US OUR PROPS IN INTERVENTION AND PREVENTION. HOW ABOUT UPPING FUNDS TO INCREASE REHABILATION FOR OUR INDIVUDALS SUFFRING FROM ADDICTION... THIS IS AN EVERLASTING BATTLE AND GUESS WHO'S WINNING! CUTTING FUNDS, PEOPLE LOSING THEIR JOBS IN MENTAL HEALTH,AND ADDICTIONS, GUESS WHO'S LOSING.... I am not codoning selling or usinging, but this is a war right here in the streets of the U.S/Mexcio.....$$$$ is being spent as I speak on machines to increase growth/potency on what was growing under water... I wonder who came up with this idea...which means increase growth, will increase sells in the streets @jails... which means $$$$ spent on increase overtime for police.....it is an EVERLASTING BATTLE/WAR...and Mexico knows it. They can't catch the big fish for the many little fish in the way....

interesting....

Although it is unclear what defines a "small amount," I believe that Mexico is following the lead of a number of other countries that have chosen decriminalizing such possession to prosecuting it. First, the savings in arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating substance users will be considerable. These savings can be invested in preventing use and treating dependence--in the US the cost of one year of incarceration can pay for treatment, several times if necessary. Second, decriminalizing use increases the likelihood that users will seek treatment once the stigma and risk of prosecution is removed. As the result users are likely to enter treatment earlier and thereby increase the chances of success. Of course supporting such a change in US policy will necessitate moving from its current moralistic view of substance users--if drugs are bad, so are those who use them and they should be punished--and adopting a more proactive stance on substance use and its treatment.

I'm feeling jealous of Mexico right now. It's like the lives of their constituents actually matters to their politicians. Let's offer to trade "leaders" with them!

I agree that decriminalization is a step in the right direction. The research is clear that incarceration does little to change behavior and overall is counterproductive, increasing other undesirable behaviors learned in jail. Research by Zimbardo has shown that nonviolent offenders who are incarcerated are at increased risk for for subsequent violent offenses. We need to be cautious though; decriminalization does not necessarily mean significant decreases in drug dependence, just some or the problems associated with it.

This is just a just another way for the government to save money. By no means people believe that it's a process in which to help deliver a more efficient drug prevention program. Or develop a drug rehabilitation source. Remember the government doesn't care about YOU. They say it's to help focus on the bigger problem but I promise you you will see no change in prosecutions or convictions, it never does. What they should do is legalize all drugs completely and punish people for the crimes committed because of them. People should be held responsible for there actions. And if you take a drug that alters reason, that was your choice and should be held accordingly.

In California we have been doing alternitive sentancing for the past 20 years,even before Prop 36 came into being. Drug Policy Alliance and Marijuana Policy Project are the ones responsible for mis-information on drug arrest numbers. For example DPA and MPP claim drug arrest when someone is arrested for Robbrey and is in possesion of marijuana. California does not incarcerate marijuana users. They get a $100.00 fine since the 1970's.

Let's see - "small amounts" could be interesting. To some of those we treat, that could be not so small. But laying aside that small detail for now, think about decriminalizing cocaine -again. It was legal here, once. Work out not so well. I'm thinking the same would be true for amphetamines. Cocaine and amphetamines become addictive for about 30% of those who try them - I'm sure in small amounts to begin with. But, hey, if we only legalize small amounts, I'm sure they won't use more, will they? And as for removing any stigma to treatment as a reason to legalize a drug, I really don't think so. I'm old, but not that old. Alcohol is legal. Treatment is available. Yet only a small fraction of those needing treatment get it. Hummm.

We would be well advised to follow Mexico's lead. Redirect the funds spent on arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating small scale drug users/abusers/addicts toward prevention and treatment to those who need and want it. I believe that our way out of this mess is to raise up a generation of drug resistant kids.

I totally agree with Mr. Chapman. Incarceration of persons charged with possession is costly and does not help anyone, inclusing the user. It is a no brainer. Americans should wake up. We think we're smart enough to choose which drugs should be legalized and we're choosing to legalize one dangerous drug but not the others. How ridiculous!! All drugs, including alcohol, are dangerous; however, we decide people that use some of the drugs are bad people and the others are OK. We appear to glorify the use of alcohol; discussing issues by sitting down with a beer, movies that show people relaxing with alcohol, etc., etc.. Possessors of drugs are not criminals. Repeat possessors are probably in need of treatment but not incarceration. Why don't we wake up and do something positive for the drug epedemic in our country???

ok Pat you say 'we choose to legalise one dangerous drug but not the other' - so would you like us to legalise another dangerous drug ? Anyone who infringes the law is a criminal ! The law is there for a good reason - it is not the laws that are wrong it is the use of drugs. Yes - wake up and do something positive - stop glamourising and trivialising drug use and reach young people (a) by example and (b) by teaching, that you don't need drugs to have a good time - get high naturally like the majority of people do. It is still a (vocal) minority that use drugs and press for relaxation of the laws to suit themselves. Most parents I know, and all the people who used drugs and came to my drug agency for help do not want drugs legalised. I would love to know how many of those who comment on many web sites that drugs should be legalised are users themselves ! I would hazard a guess that the majority are.

What we really need to do is to make drugs legal, and the government should sell them. That would hit the druglords where it hurts, and that is what the govt. wants to do, right? Honestly, I think it is all a bunch of lies as usual. I believe that a few key people in this nation that control the drug laws (people in the DEA for example) are also controlling the flow of drugs into our country and are making millions. Making it legal would only cause the millions (or billions?) in cash flow to dry up, so why should they?