)")Should we not ban alcohol then? It just doesn't make sense that because bad things can happen with something, that we should make it illegal. Essentially, with that, all you're doing is ignoring the problem, hoping it will go away if you tell people they can't do it. This never works, and, in the end, you end up making black markets, gangs, filled prisons, wasted tax money, etc. If anything, it would make sense to make it legal for private use, which, AFAIK, is the case with alcohol. (Public drinking is illegal in most places.)I think if more people were responsible enough to do as you say (only use it in their own home/privacy), the it would be fine to have it legalized. Unfortunately, people will end up using it in public or using it to get high and then drive or do something that could potentially injure someone else. It's just like alchohol, if you drink in your own home, or with friends in their homes and you don't leave to become a threat to others, it is fine, but the second you either get into a car or start making scenes outside or something, it crosses the line quickly.
There's always lines to be drawn with things like this. I think the major illusion here is that there's very little impact from drug use for most people using them. If a crackhouse or a methlab opens up in a community just wait and watch it go downhill. Prositution and theft, armed assault and a multitude of issues follow and flow from the use of a lot of illicit drugs. I forget the exact statistics but here in the U.S. there was something 65%+ being committed under the influence of a substance, the bulk of it being alcohol. On top of that prolonged use a lot of heavier drugs will flat out induce psychosis and a number of other health problems, once someone is compentent to care for themselves they become a burden on either the state or their family. I'd definitely argue that there's a lot of substances that should never be legalized.Alboin wrote: Should we not ban alcohol then? It just doesn't make sense that because bad things can happen with something, that we should make it illegal. Essentially, with that, all you're doing is ignoring the problem, hoping it will go away if you tell people they can't do it. This never works, and, in the end, you end up making black markets, gangs, filled prisons, wasted tax money, etc. If anything, it would make sense to make it legal for private use, which, AFAIK, is the case with alcohol. (Public drinking is illegal in most places.)
IMO, the state should give no care about what people do to themselves. If people drink themselves into oblivion, OD on heroin, or go insane due to drug use, it's not the state's problem. The costs involved in taking care of these people once they can no longer take care of themselves would probably be nothing compared to the costs of locking them all up in a prison, and waging a continual war on drugs. As for the effects on the community, it's the job of the people who live there to take care of their neighborhood. (By the way, I have no problem with prostitution. As far as I'm concerned, it should be legal. If anything, once recognized as an industry, this would at least make it healthier by providing more knowledge and care to its workers, that is, rather than arresting them as well.)Cognition wrote:There's always lines to be drawn with things like this. I think the major illusion here is that there's very little impact from drug use for most people using them. If a crackhouse or a methlab opens up in a community just wait and watch it go downhill. Prositution and theft, armed assault and a multitude of issues follow and flow from the use of a lot of illicit drugs. I forget the exact statistics but here in the U.S. there was something 65%+ being committed under the influence of a substance, the bulk of it being alcohol. On top of that prolonged use a lot of heavier drugs will flat out induce psychosis and a number of other health problems, once someone is compentent to care for themselves they become a burden on either the state or their family. I'd definitely argue that there's a lot of substances that should never be legalized.
By not spending millions of tax payer's money on drug enforcement, arresting pot smoking 'criminals', and then locking them up and taking care of them for x number of years, there would be a lot of money for other things, like actually making our country a better place to live.Cognition wrote:I think do think marijuana is one where a good number of people can use it responsibly. I'm more then fine with terminal paitents using it as a painkiller too. Still there's a lot of people that absolutely will not use it responsibly. I don't think it really actively incites the same kind of crime that other drugs do partially because of it's nature as a depressent and how widespread/cheap it is compared to other substances. Some of the long term side effects of heavy use can be pretty severe as well. In general though I think the real question is what good does it do to have it around?
Cognition wrote:Alcohol and tobacco pretty much are still around because of lobbying and tradition. On top of that alcohol is ridiculously easy to make and would be nearly impossible to get rid of. Once again I think you can probably make a lot of similar arguments between alcohol and marijuana in terms of why it should be legal, but ultimately alcohol wins out because of how long it's been in common use and how incredibly widespread it's regular responsible use is.
I forget the exact statistics but here in the U.S. there was something 65%+ being committed under the influence of a substance, the bulk of it being alcohol.
One must define 'criminal'. A pot smoking teenager is by no means a criminal, but, he would be arrested, and his record marked. Legalizing marijuana wouldn't let a bunch of 'criminals' go free, but redefine what to be a 'criminal' means. If anything, it should mean that one has restricted the liberties of another human being. How does doing the occasional drug do this?Cognition wrote:Criminals will always, as the old saying goes "where there's a will there's a way". If it wasn't drugs it'd probably be gambling, prositution, robbery or maybe ransom.
The problem with this is that people don't live in some isolated bubble where they can just go insane without impacting another person. People don't generally go insane or hit rock bottom without having a very high chance of ending up in either the mental health system or the penal system anyways. You can't just will them away. Regarding the economics of it all, I'm pretty much fine with it. I think in general we need to put some tighter controls on money we spend abroad to deal with the problem. Mexico has had a kind of lax record with actually going after a lot of drug kingpins, I don't know that we should keep sending them money to condone the practice.IMO, the state should give no care about what people do to themselves. If people drink themselves into oblivion, OD on heroin, or go insane due to drug use, it's not the state's problem. The costs involved in taking care of these people once they can no longer take care of themselves would probably be nothing compared to the costs of locking them all up in a prison, and waging a continual war on drugs. As for the effects on the community, it's the job of the people who live there to take care of their neighborhood. (By the way, I have no problem with prostitution. As far as I'm concerned, it should be legal. If anything, once recognized as an industry, this would at least make it healthier by providing more knowledge and care to its workers, that is, rather than arresting them as well.)
I was addressing more the statements you made about gangs and black markets. I wouldn't lump all users and drug addicts in the same category as criminals, though it is technically illegal. My point on alcohol was that it's not necessarily much better, but it's been around forever and thus become very ingrained with society. It's arguably easier to moderate use of it or enjoy it as a beverage too.One must define 'criminal'. A pot smoking teenager is by no means a criminal, but, he would be arrested, and his record marked. Legalizing marijuana wouldn't let a bunch of 'criminals' go free, but redefine what to be a 'criminal' means. If anything, it should mean that one has restricted the liberties of another human being. How does doing the occasional drug do this?
Only thing I'd really argue here is what you're stating as reasons people pick up drug use for. I don't think most people are thrill seekers doing it just doing it because it's illegal, maybe a few teenagers. I think most people tend to use it more to relax or as a form of escapism. I doubt they'd really decrease if the drug was made legal. I'm also of the opinion that this is where an addiction and dependency really starts. That's what really creates a drunk or a drug addict most of the time, the need and dependence to use a substance to avoid an issue or problem. Some people can moderate it, but a lot can't and hit rock bottom and end up just burning out. I think society is at a point medically where there's just better alternatives that are fully legal and with less severe side effects. It'd be better all around to focus some of that energy towards lowering prescription drug prices and deal with the demand aspect of it all directly.This might seem obvious, but wouldn't legalizing marijuana actually solve these problems?
As most of the price is associated with the danger/cost of smuggling it?
Since it would cost a hell of a lot less, people who where addicted would be able to afford it as the prices would come down, therefore diminishing crime related with the drug as people wouldn't be forced to crime to get the money to get there fix...
Also there would be less addiction, as people mostly do drugs, because their exiting and different, if it becomes legal, a lot of the excitement will go away, therefore there be a smaller rate of use and re-use (as most people don't get hooked after the first use...), therefore diminishing the amount of people addicted to it in later life and therefore impacting all the problems related to it...
Also, I have to say that in many cases, it's probably the lesser of two evils if the alternative is alcohol as India Night recently pointed out in one of her articles...
Just my opinion...
The type of people who would hit such levels of abuse, and end up in some trouble, would probably end up doing said crime with or without the drugs.The problem with this is that people don't live in some isolated bubble where they can just go insane without impacting another person. People don't generally go insane or hit rock bottom without having a very high chance of ending up in either the mental health system or the penal system anyways. You can't just will them away.
Why not spend the money on something else?Regarding the economics of it all, I'm pretty much fine with it. I think in general we need to put some tighter controls on money we spend abroad to deal with the problem. Mexico has had a kind of lax record with actually going after a lot of drug kingpins, I don't know that we should keep sending them money to condone the practice.
I usually don't join discussions like this one, because they tend to simply regurgitate the same old POV's over and over again.frank wrote:What's the only 2 difference between porn and prostitution? Who's paying and the fact that it's being filmed (there are some other differences like the record keeping and stuff but they're really not important.)
