I'd rather money be spent on awareness campaigns of the dangers of abusing drugs rather than funding a "war" on it. If people are irresponsible and abuse it and then commit a crime they should be dealt with the same as anyone else committing the same crime. The crime itself shouldn't be the drugs themselves. No substance is good or bad inherently, only in the way it is used. I could eat myself to death with salad, or take arsenic in amounts that wouldn't hurt me at all.
I know plenty of socially responsible and productive people that recreationally use drugs the same way most people use alcohol or coffee.
As usual everybody is punished thanks to people with no self control whom don't want to take responsibility for their own actions.
Topic: Valid Arguments on Whether Drugs Should Be Legalized for Personal Consumption - page 3. (Read 3465 times)
February 19, 2012, 04:48:23 PM
February 17, 2012, 09:22:48 AM
The real, non-advertised justification is probably money. When an act is prohibited, it necessarily becomes illegal and then if the demand of it remains high enough (demand for drugs is never going to go down -- this is a fact that most people are finally realizing), the price is driven up. The price is then driven further upward by the artificial scarcity generated by the non-legality. On top of that, there is a security racket put into place surrounding the illicit substance (guns and violence associated with it). The violence surrounding the black markets (which would quickly dry up if they became legal) is most of what drives the drug war (which is $$$$$$).
Money is the motivator -- there is simply too much at stake to make drugs legal all of a sudden. Maybe gradually, maybe.
Money is the motivator -- there is simply too much at stake to make drugs legal all of a sudden. Maybe gradually, maybe.
February 17, 2012, 05:39:16 AM
1) It is ineffective and a waste of money.
- I would like to see how many people would check a box once a year saying "give $100 to enforce existing drug laws"
- I would like to see how many people would check a box once a year saying "give $100 to enforce existing drug laws"
February 17, 2012, 03:08:57 AM
Should drugs be legalized for personal consumption?
Why or why not?
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with allowing people to do what they want to themselves as long as it doesn't hurt others.
However, I most certainly disapprove of the fact that that decision is, in most countries, no longer up to the individual but to their government!?!?
So for example, why should the State say, "You are allowed to drink alcohol until your liver fails, but not a sip of absinthe. You can smoke nicotine until your lungs rot, but you are not allowed to inhale THC. You may eat high-cholesterol-ed junk and fast food until your heart attacks, but you may not ingest a single psychedelic mushroom"?
What is the justification?
And to go a step further, why not allow individual cultivation/production for personal use?
Why or why not?
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with allowing people to do what they want to themselves as long as it doesn't hurt others.
However, I most certainly disapprove of the fact that that decision is, in most countries, no longer up to the individual but to their government!?!?
So for example, why should the State say, "You are allowed to drink alcohol until your liver fails, but not a sip of absinthe. You can smoke nicotine until your lungs rot, but you are not allowed to inhale THC. You may eat high-cholesterol-ed junk and fast food until your heart attacks, but you may not ingest a single psychedelic mushroom"?
What is the justification?
And to go a step further, why not allow individual cultivation/production for personal use?
Jump to: