Reply With Quote
Yes, yes they should.
Heroine, crack-cocaine, coke, and anything Hunter S. Thompson happened to try-- should all of it be legal?
Discuss
Yes, yes they should.
Yep.
Yes, and no drugs should be prescription only. If people want to self medicate with Gemzar, they should be able to get it over the counter because it's their body and they can do what they want with it.
Also, drug companies should be able to sell any drug they invent to the general public and not be liable for any side effects.
Last edited by SnakeBoy; 05-08-2009 at 02:06 AM.
I see what you are trying to say but we're talking about drugs that are currently illegal. Do you believe in alcohol prohibition as well? Any drug that is legalized will be taxed and regulated just like alcohol. I don't see too much of a bootleg booze market so don't try to argue that drug cartels would continue to operate as usual.
the problem with people doing whatever they want when it comes to drugs
is that they strain the health system.
and the justice system too, because cops have to respond to tons of calls about drug related crimes and violence
And they don't already? What are all these prisoners in jail for then? Just because drugs are illegal doesn't mean people aren't using them.
those are just the people willing to break the law
If everyone was allowed to do it, more 'normal' people who do not break the law would say "Hey it's legal now, let's try it" and you have more violence at parties, drug related crimes, more people on drugs while driving on a road, etc...
believe it or not, the fact that drugs are illegal keeps most people away.
I just don't believe that would be true. There isn't a way to prove it either way right now since we haven't legalized anything recently. However, Portugal decriminalized (i know its not legalization) all drugs in 2001 and there has been no negative effect on drug usage rates. You can read more about that here: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080 Most people understand that crack, heroin, meth aren't good for you already. I find it hard to take seriously people that support alcohol and tobacco legalization, but not other type of drugs. Alcohol and tobacco kill millions and millions of people a year.
Clearly you don't see what I was trying to say. So if crack, heroine, meth, etc. are all made legal who do you think should be liable for all of the side effects of those drugs?
The same people that are made liable for the side effects of alcohol.
There's no way people are going to go running to crack and meth just because it would be legalized. By that argument everyone should be smoking sherm right now.
The side effects of the drugs are way worse when illegal. One side-effect was my friend's wife getting shot and killed in South LA in front of her kid because they happened to be walking down the sidewalk when a drug war broke out. Real contribution to society giving crime syndicates such an extremely profitable business opportunity that turns some neighborhoods from bad into outright deadly.
Another side effect is the ridiculous money we throw into the prison system. Another is waging war on our own people. Yet another is pushing our police departments to the brink to fight a war of morals. Maybe the worst side-effect is that it drastically reduces our own personal liberties. If I'm an adult, I do what I want with my body and anyone who tells me I cannot. the drug war.
portugal is tiny.
sorry, can't compare.
Who's liable for the side effects of alcohol?
The crimes relating drugs are just the consequences of forbiding drugs. It's just like the case of Al Capone, who made a big fortune in early 20th century by smuggling and selling liquor illegally. It was a good purpose to let americans waste less money on liquor, but the federal decree couldn't restrict gangs. Oppositely the fed just blocked the ways of legal liquor trade, which gave the illegal ones more demand in market. The problem is the government cannot squelsh the demand of folks, stifling the source of water will only make them more thristy. If the government legislates drugs trade, the gangs will lose a major financial source, which will also help mitigate the gang problems. It's not only an issue of protecting the freedom of citizens, but an action that will benefit the whole nation a lot.
The user, wit.
Most drug related crimes are related to the illegal selling, moving, or buying of drugs. Now take the illegality out of the equation....
Legal, but heavily regulated. For example, many antibiotics become ineffective if everyone is using them. Sellers should be on the hook when a drug that is advertised to be wonderful turns out to be dangerous. Dangerous addictive drugs should be regulated at least as much as tobacco and alcohol.
Only marijuana.
Have you geniuses actually been around people for a long period of time who are on heroine, crack, or meth?
Have you geniuses seen the way the government forces taxpayers to take care of everyone?
These losers would be so strung out they could not keep a job and they would still murder your grandmother for $10.
All Drugs legal? Really?
Last edited by FaithInOne; 05-08-2009 at 09:01 AM.
Seems to work out everywhere they've tried it so far. Usage rates have gone down (along with crime) in the Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland.
Chances are those people don't have a job today because the cost of drugs are so high they have to spend their lives stealing things to pay for their next fix.
- - -These losers would be so strung out they could not keep a job and they would still murder your grandmother for $10.
Because of my deep lack of care for man, I am willing to support the experiment.
I agree. No, we cannot legalize most drugs that are already illegal. Now if someone wants to throw away their life, I don't mind. Let's say someone wants to use a drug that will stop them from being a productive member of society. I say fine, as long as they have the money to take care of them already for the rest of their lives. As long as we don't spend more tax dollars to support those who incapacitate themselves, i don't care.
People who visit McDonald's strain the health system.
Many of the drug-related crime and much of the drug-related violence wouldn't occur except for the fact government has created a mechanism that inflated the rewards of the drug trade to heights that make the considerable risks acceptable to many and the expense of the rest of us.
Plus, the non-violent drug-related crimes would not longer be crimes, freeing the police up to fight actual crimes like Driving Under the Influence of drugs or alcohol.
Really? The user
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
