Len,

>>Why? (and this goes to the heart of the 'it doesn't hurt anyone' argument) If you're breaking the law your behavior is causing some person to need to spend time and money that could go towards some other venture to be spent tracking you down and prosecuting you. They do that because they are legally required to do this. Again, if you don't like this then work within the law to have it changed. Until then, when you break the law, you are a part of the problem, not the answer.
>
>This goes right to the heart of the matter. One of the main reasons why the police here are looking for changes in the law concerning possession & use of certain drugs is essentially economic, both in terms of time & money.
>
>What benefit is there to society in criminalising someone who possesses drug for their own personal use ? If there is no appreciable benefit, then should we spend money on enforcing the laws, or should we look at modifying the laws to reduce the costs.

Well, I suppose that there are several answers to your question.

One is certainly the moral one, though 'traditional morality' is something os a curse phrase anymore, so effective have the moral equivilizers been in their campaigns.

As an aside, most folks do not know that in the Bible the Greek word 'pharmakea' (sp?) (phar-mah-kee'-ahh) was actually translated into the word 'witchcraft' and Paul stated that those who practiced this "would not inherit the kingdom of God", so I suppose that's a part of the basis why some think using drugs is immoral. The use of drugs has traditionally been associated with religious ceremonies.

Secondly, and probably more widely spoken of is the notion that use of drugs impedes productivity. Lost wages, theft, sicknesses, etc are all associated with drug abuse and it has a tremendous impact on society.

Thirdly, I suppose one can make the argument that overuse of drugs impacts the health service industry, using precious resources.

I suppose your suggestion of modifying the laws to "reduce the costs" is one of the more valid reasons for examining the whole infrastructure and I'd certainly support it but I still think that to remove all civil penalties is the wrong way to go. Reduce or change? Sure; perhaps. Eliminate? No, I don't think I'd support that approach.