Who said that?Quote:
Originally Posted by sabar
Printable View
Who said that?Quote:
Originally Posted by sabar
Im just surprised Yoni falls on the "personal liberty" side of the argument.
Drugs should be legal. They should be taxed. People in prison for non-violent drug crimes should be released.
We have far more problems than morality issues.
Why don't the liberals embrace that? They want to take guns out of people hands, why not drugs?Quote:
Originally Posted by E20
Well, we have medical marijuana here in Oregon. Thought about getting a prescription myself. Thing is, my job would frown on that, and it's a federal job!Quote:
Originally Posted by braeden0613
The premise of those opposed to legalization is that legalization would lead to a significant increase in the number of addicted users who would impose a greater societal cost. Ergo, we need society to restrict consumption through making it illegal and creating significant penalties for the use and production of certain drugs.
I disagree. I don't believe that you can take the experience with 'softer' drugs such as tobacco, alcohol, and caffeine and use that to extrapolate the impact of legalization. Most people understand that meth, coke, smack, etc....are all harder drugs than alcohol and weed. Most people know well enough to leave those alone. We see many use marijuana (though illegal) and yet the harder stuff attracts fewer users.
Most people don't want to end up living the life of an addict. Most people want to have a decent quality of life and don't want to end up in rehab. Sure, some start out that way and end up as addicts, but the majority are able to ignore whatever temptation they may face due to the non-legal repercussions of becoming an addict (loss of love, job, control, etc).
Also, yes, legalization of some sort will reduce the cachet that comes with some drugs being illegal and certainly would reduce the incentive that attracts criminality. But I don't see a boom in heroin and cocaine users if legalization occurred. It's common knowledge what the use of harder drugs can do to your life, outside of the present legal penalties.
At the end of the day, either we believe that we are a free people who are capable, in general, of taking care of ourselves, or that we are a servile people who need the government to babysit us. The same logic that applies to drug prohibition easily follows for lifestyle matters such as diet and exercise, especially when an increasing portion of the electorate expects the nanny state to take care of us from cradle to grave.
And while tobacco use is not yet illegal (perhaps when a couple generations pass it will be), think about how much effort is being expended to decrease its use. What has been the motivating factor? Public health care costs. Before long, will not the same effort be seen against alcohol use? Or will the masses finally find a line they will not allow the state to cross?
People are free to hook their car's battery up to their genitals, yet how many do so? Of course, someone could, so we probably should restrict the use of batteries, no?