Wow DM, I see you don't mind taking advantage of people who have no choice but to buy drugs. This people are addicted DM. The government could charge them however much they want to on tax, and you know what? These people will still buy. Eventually guess what will happen though? The government, like always, will get greedy and they will set the tax too high, and when that happens, guess what?!? We are back to where we started, there will be dealers selling it illegally cheaper than what you can buy legally. There are some who are severely addicted to these drugs, and they have to have them, and cannot stop without the proper treatment, if the government taxes these people it would be equivalent of the government taxing essentials such as milk or bread. It is a very dirty way for a city to earn extra income.
And if these drugs remain illegal, then it is the dealers who will be the greedy proprietors, instead of the government--pick your poison. And who is to say that heavy taxation of formerly illegal drugs is the necessary result of decriminalization?
That is a stupid argument, you can't deny the fact that there are many people who haven't tried any sort of drugs on the account of them being illegal. Just think of the masses of people who have goals and aspirations to be something special in life, who are too afraid of getting caught doing something illegal that will close doors of opperitunity for the rest of their lives. I know if I was a dean to a Medical school or Law school, I sure as hell wouldn't want someone as a student who has a history of illegal drug use. Now if it weren't illegal...people wouldn't fear for their futures, they will fall into the trap of, oh I'll just try it once just to see how if feels, and then they will most likely enjoy it, becuase that is obviously what they are designed to do, and try it again and viola, you have addiction, and their life is going to be screwed until they can break the addiction, which so you know, is very difficult, or die.
I couldn't help but laugh at this one. I can guarantee you those same people with aspirations who are afraid of having certain doors closed (such as law or medical school) due to the potentiality of a crippling criminal record are also aware that those same doors would be closed if they got into heavy drug usage of chemically addicting drugs. You must know some really stupid law and medical students.
This is another flawed argument, I am tired of hearing ridiculous excuses to back up drug use, they are bad for you, shouldn't be used, get over it. Drug users deserve to go to jail and to rehab. There it forces them to overcome their problems that they might not have the will or the ability to do on their own. The threat of jail, prevents people from trying the drug to begin with and rehab saves lives. The whole treat the addict, not the addiction thing, is also very flawed. When you think about it, really think about it, doctors treat and cure ailments, not the patients, and it is the same for rehab treating addictions and not addicts, it is the way it should be.
DM was not backing up drug usage in any way, shape or form. And to say that drug users deserve to go to jail, according to, presumably, as I interpret you, a standard independent from the law (like a moral standpoint) is a strong statement and is one that is difficult to support. In what ways is, say, heroin usage, independent from dealing and direct harm of others, any different from any other form of self-indulgence, such as eating too many big macs? Yes, I understand that "drugs are real serious" in comparison to big macs, but the analogy is nevertheless appropriate.
Also, the threat of jail does not stop people from doing drugs, since there is virtually no threat of jail in using. You'd have to be an idiot to be caught and it is really only the distributors, and not the users, that are pursued by law enforcement.
And ummm... as for that last part: the reason as to why, in the recreational drug rehabilitation process there is a "treat the addict" mantra as opposed to a "treat the addiction" mantra is because there is no medical treatment available for the specific addictions induced by hard, street drugs. If so, celebrities would not go to rehab; they would just order the appropriate medication.
Honestly, everyone realizes it is a slippery slope, but is better than the avalanche that would befall everyone if every drug was legalized. It is impossible to make evey drug illegal, becuase that would promote crime, but if you legalized them all, that would promote mayhem, which is just as bad. There is an equilibrium point to be reached, in theory it would be best if all drugs were banned, but that just isn't feasible at this time, so we must do the best we can with what we got. With better drug prevention programs and increased general knowledge someday it will get to the point where drugs will be rare and it will be ok to ban them all. Unfortionately that day is far off but we must never give up the fight.
How would the legalization of all drugs promote crime? All of a sudden, with cocaine being available at my local pharmaceutical store after a lengthy regulatory process, I will decide to rape and murder? C'mon man, think a little. If anything, it would reduce crime, since dealers would be dealt a massive blow.
While this may be true marijuana is illegal and can cause serious damage to your reputation and future. Alchohol's damaging effects to your body is also only a little more severe than marijuana, so in reality both shouldn't be used. Alcohol though has been a part of human society since the dawn of civilization so don't expect it to go away anytime soon. Marijauna on the other hand, has alway been looked down upon and it is the easier of the two evils to combat. If we are going to tackle the two beasts, lets save as many lives as we can with the resources available, and those resources are better spent fighting the use of weed.
...huh?
The fact that you have such little regard for human life sickens me. If you saw a man bleeding in the road with severed artery, would you try to save him? He is dying... People addicted to drugs are dying too, a little everytime they use a drug and cause damage to their body. They are damaging their bodies in ways that can never be repaired, and you suggest to stand idly by and watch them waste away? Your argument is parallel to letting a kid drown in a pool becuase it was his choice to get into the water, and it wasn't up to you to him not to.
There is a difference between a man bleeding on the road (it could have been an accident and he WANTS to be saved) and a man who is willingly killing himself. It is his decision to kill himself and everyone is entitled to suicide. We're thrown into this world without our consent; we have the right to end it if we please. If I see a man who is killing himself (unless he is someone important to me, since it would hurt me for him to die; this, however, is only for selfish reasons) I would let him exercise his free will. And your drowning kid parallel is as non-parallel as your bleeding man argument. The kid's choice was to go into the water, NOT to die while in the water, while the stabbing man's choice was PRECISELY to kill himself.
It is true, that is why we have to be patient and work effeciently in the fight against drugs as I previously stated.
So the theoretical AND empirical evidence is against you, yet you wanna keep on truckin'? How can we work efficiently against drugs? We just can't and unless you provide me with some sound and well reasoned theory, I just don't buy it.
Maybe because people don't intentionally get mualed by tigers and trampled on by stameding elephants. Maybe it is becuase people don't go to beaches during hurricanes or try to swim in volcanoes, maybe it is becuase most people wouldn't try to wrestle a bear or fight with a gorrilla. Maybe it is becuase people don't try to fly kites in tornadoes and to catch hail stones with their teeth. Maybe becuase there is no need to illegalize every harmful event that can occur in nature, becuase most of us are intelligent enough to avoid these kind of dangers. I know I am. Are you?
Okay, wtf is this? How does this diatribe have anything to do with... anything?
Not true, I am sure more people avoid doing bad things becuase they are wrong than people who do bad things becuase they are wrong. Just think, if children were attracted to what they shouldn't do, then why does 94% of the United States Juvenile population have no record of crime?
Getting busted for crime and doing things you shouldn't be doing are not the same thing. And I would agree that people, in general, are attracted to, in some shape or form, to what they shouldn't do. It's just human nature.
