Police chiefs, judges and prosecutors explain why the “war on drugs” is immoral
This video by LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) is well worth watching, especially by those who claim to support the "War on Drugs." The many hundreds of law enforcement officials who belong to LEAP agree that what we have is not a "War on Drugs," but prohibition, rampant social destruction and corruption. But won't people start using a lot more drugs if they are legalized? Not likely, based on the "Holland effect": Legalizing marijuana in The Netherlands has lessened its appeal: Per-capita consumption is only half what it is in the United States. "They have succeeded in making marijuana boring," according to James Gray, an Orange County Superior Court judge for 20 years. Check out the 12-minute mark of the above video for shocking statistics on institutionalized racism. As one of the police officers states, legalization is not about promoting drugs. It's about stopping the violence. Once we legalize, then we can go about our work to discourage the destructive use of drugs, just like we did with cigarettes. 50% percent of adult smokers have given up that habit in the past ten years thanks to education. We cut the use of nicotine in half without telling our police to kick down doors and slap handcuffs onto smokers. Judge Gray indicates that ending the "war on drugs" is the "single most important thing we could do" to improve our urban neighborhoods. What is the war on drugs? According to one of the speakers in the above video, it's "sixty nine billion dollars per year down the rat hole." I agree. The "War on Drugs" should be renamed the "Inject Violence Into Neighborhoods Project." It is immoral and senseless. And finally, there is good reason to believe that the momentum has changed (based on many things, including Denver's legalization of marijuana). Large numbers of Americans are starting to question this insane "War." Judge Gray makes the point that legalizing marijuana is NOT condoning it. In the following talk (Oct 28, 2009), he gives a long litany of additional reasons for regulating and controlling marijuana. The biggest reason for legalizing is the the present system endangers children: For much more important information, see the home page of LEAP.
You think you're open-minded? What if the North American Man-Boy Love Association wanted to distribute a newsletter in your town? What if they wanted to hold a local parade celebrating pederasty?
I am currently studying social psychology in graduate school, and I'm particularly interested in political psychology. One of my present research interests is political tolerance. "Political tolerance" refers to individuals' willingness to extend equal civil liberties to unpopular groups.
When political scientists and psychologists measure political tolerance, they often probe individuals for their ability to withstand the most offensive, outlandish groups and speech possible. For example, a liberal-minded person may be asked whether they would be willing to allow a rally for the Klu Klux Klan or some extremist, militaristic group. Paradoxically, a truly tolerant person must be willing to allow racially intolerant speech.
Political tolerance plays a cornerstone role in functioning democracies (at least, we think so). If voters can strip away the civil liberties of disliked political groups, those liberties lay on precarious ground indeed. If we cannot tolerate the words of anarchists or members of the Westboro Baptist Church, then we do not really believe in the boundlessness of speech at all.
Academics say as much. In reality, voters are not so tolerant. 
