• Pro-Legalization vs Prohibition of "Drugs"
    388 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Rediscover;32382655]i hope this post is a joke because you obviously are talking out of your ass and have no idea how drugs work legalization would not create more users of the drug, because if they were going to do it they already would, legalization would not suddenly spark the urge to go hit up a joint. if anything it would do the opposite, i doubt all the kids that smoke to be ~cool~ would continue to smoke if suddenly it was socially acceptable[/QUOTE] This is exactly where you are wrong, legialization would make it more acceptable, if I smoked weed and it was illegal my mom would kill me. If it was legal she would have nothing on me. I drink underage my mom would also kill me, I drink when It's legal for my age, she would not. See where I am going with this?
[QUOTE=Michaeldf;32438595]This is exactly where you are wrong, legialization would make it more acceptable, if I smoked weed and it was illegal my mom would kill me. If it was legal she would have nothing on me. I drink underage my mom would also kill me, I drink when It's legal for my age, she would not. See where I am going with this?[/QUOTE] Where you're going with this is wrong. After prohibition happened, alcohol use skyrocketed. But once it ended, it fell back down and leveled out over some odd years. Yes, if smoking weed and doing other drugs was seen in a legal light, they would be more acceptable. So? Doing drugs is a personal choice and not one anyone else can make for you. Certainly not the one the government can or should make for you. Drugs being illegal has clearly stopped little drug use.Drug use per capita has gone up massively since the drug war started. What has prohibition done? Nothing. Also, doing drugs WOULD have an age limit, similar, if not the same as drinking. It wouldn't be some "i'm 13, I can buy drugs!" like situation. Where the hell do you people get this?
Fuck prescription, just make drugs legal. Then at same place have books that write about side effects and usage of such drugs. Money made from that can go to the healthcare of addicts and such, to research, and to country's bank. Also we should except less health problems because drugs will be CLEAN with no LAB RESIDUE, which are fucking harmful. (bad synthed drugs can make you permanently retarded)
Did you guys know that the leading cause of disability in the U.S. is 'addiction' at 80 million? With drugs being legal, those 80 million disabled addicts would benefit the country by paying taxes by buying the drugs.
I'm all for legalizing marijuana, but all other illegal drugs should stay illegal.
This is what happens when you make drugs illegal. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcAszLdXYK0[/media]
[QUOTE=VistaPOWA;32375281]Legalize "low-level" drugs, such as marijuana, but regulate them. I'd rather not like to see the future generation(s) grow up on pot.[/QUOTE] You've obviously never made use of pot.
[QUOTE=HeatPipe;32441232]Fuck prescription, just make drugs legal. Then at same place have books that write about side effects and usage of such drugs. Money made from that can go to the healthcare of addicts and such, to research, and to country's bank. Also we should except less health problems because drugs will be CLEAN with no LAB RESIDUE, which are fucking harmful. (bad synthed drugs can make you permanently retarded)[/QUOTE] I think it is just wishful thinking that drugs without impurities from questionable synthesis won't harm people. Or that legalising it will stop that sort of practice. Take a look at the cigarette industry and the extra stuff they put in their products. And why would you want to give people something that you know they have a reasonable chance of being addicted to, just so they can have a bit of a good time?
[QUOTE=Michaeldf;32438595]This is exactly where you are wrong, legialization would make it more acceptable, if I smoked weed and it was illegal my mom would kill me. If it was legal she would have nothing on me. I drink underage my mom would also kill me, I drink when It's legal for my age, she would not. See where I am going with this?[/QUOTE] Man I feel sorry for you having such a strict mom. [editline]24th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Jabberwocky;32451224]I think it is just wishful thinking that drugs without impurities from questionable synthesis won't harm people. Or that legalising it will stop that sort of practice. Take a look at the cigarette industry and the extra stuff they put in their products. And why would you want to give people something that you know they have a reasonable chance of being addicted to, just so they can have a bit of a good time?[/QUOTE] Because the ones that are most addictive are such a good time its worth the risk :v: Source: Firsthand experience
[QUOTE=Jabberwocky;32451224]I think it is just wishful thinking that drugs without impurities from questionable synthesis won't harm people. Or that legalising it will stop that sort of practice. Take a look at the cigarette industry and the extra stuff they put in their products. And why would you want to give people something that you know they have a reasonable chance of being addicted to, just so they can have a bit of a good time?[/QUOTE] The tobbacco companies get away with a lot because of who their in bed with. Pharma may too, but I have reason to believe that those drugs will be made a lot better than any meth head cook or whatever. Because that's their choice...? Not yours to make for them? It's curious that you think you can make that choice for anyone but yourself. As an ex addict myself, I'd say people that go through that and successfully conquer their addiction are a lot stronger than most. Forcing people out of drug use by legislation does not teach them the lesson that needs to be learned by drugs. I wonder what people who don't agree with you making that choice for them are going to do. Oh, that's right, make it themselves because when drugs are made with over the counter chemicals and can be made in your own house, then how the fuck do you stop this? You can't. Not unless you want a police state.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;32453494]The tobbacco companies get away with a lot because of who their in bed with. Pharma may too, but I have reason to believe that those drugs will be made a lot better than any meth head cook or whatever. Because that's their choice...? Not yours to make for them? It's curious that you think you can make that choice for anyone but yourself. As an ex addict myself, I'd say people that go through that and successfully conquer their addiction are a lot stronger than most. Forcing people out of drug use by legislation does not teach them the lesson that needs to be learned by drugs.[/quote] So the way that people should learn that some drugs can ruin their lives is to ruin their lives with those drugs? Unfortunately, not everyone is as "strong" as you and I don't think that we should use these drugs to cull off the unfortunate. The reason I don't find the personal liberty approach convincing in these arguments is because once you're addicted, you don't "choose" to abuse the drug, you [i]have[/i] to. It no longer becomes a choice any more than it is to stop eating or drinking. [quote]I wonder what people who don't agree with you making that choice for them are going to do. Oh, that's right, make it themselves because when drugs are made with over the counter chemicals and can be made in your own house, then how the fuck do you stop this? You can't. Not unless you want a police state.[/QUOTE] And I hate this mentally that because it's too hard or isn't as glamourous as we hoped then we give up. Crimes like murder, rape and theft still keep happening and it will keep happening unless basically get an officer next to everyone 24/7 but that's no reason to allow them.
My two cents have always been: As long as said person isn't harming anyone but him or herself, it is absolutely none of your fucking business. It's their life and their choices.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32451152]You've obviously never made use of pot.[/QUOTE] Are you saying that you'd like every teenager in the future to be high all the day?
[QUOTE=VistaPOWA;32454347]Are you saying that you'd like every teenager in the future to be high all the day?[/QUOTE] Im sure that would cause violent crime to go down :v:
IMO all drugs should be legal since people have the right to do whatever the fuck they want to their bodies also they can be taxed and regulated which means more money to the country as a whole and less to the gangs and terrorists that drugs supposedly fund.
[QUOTE=Someoneuduno;32454565]IMO all drugs should be legal since people have the right to do whatever the fuck they want to their bodies also they can be taxed and regulated which means more money to the country as a whole and less to the gangs and terrorists that drugs supposedly fund.[/QUOTE] I disagree. Some drugs should be illegal because they simply destroy you, and in the end everyone has to pay for that person because they were being stupid.
I don't have any first hand experience with drugs like heroin or cocaine, so I can't form a reasonable opinion about them, however, I believe it's going to be a long, hard uphill battle to get cannabis legalized. When you try to convince people that it's not the demon they make it out to be, they just put their fingers in their ears or giggle like a fucking idiot. Nobody seems to take cannabis legalization seriously because it conjures the image of the stereotypical hippie stoner like Chong and programs like D.A.R.E. keep churning out barrels of bullshit for younger generations to soak up and in turn spread to their children. Meanwhile, the same people that preach about the toxicity of cannabis will turn right around, get shitfaced at the bar, and then weave and swerve their way back home while threatening everyone else's lives on the road. Now, I understand that a good portion of those that drink do so in moderation, but those that oppose legalization should also understand that not everyone who uses cannabis is a burnout teenager with a bong permanently grafted to their hand spouting "420 errday".
[QUOTE=sami-elite;32454655]I disagree. Some drugs should be illegal because they simply destroy you.[/QUOTE] Are going to allow the government to dictate what you can or cannot do with your body? Regardless of the effects said drugs might have, I still view the right to my body as essential in a free society and even more so in a country that preaches it's freedom ( see: America). Would you have the government legislate driving to be illegal because the possibility of "destroying yourself"? Studies show that you have a 1 in 84 chance of dying in a car accident in a lifetime. (see: [url]http://reason.com/archives/2006/08/11/dont-be-terrorized[/url]) [quote]Therefore your lifetime probability (6500 ÷ 78 years life expectancy) of dying in a motor accident are about one in 83. [/quote] Does that not seem to be a more pressing matter to legislate because of the danger associated with it? Why should the government be bothered with people do for fun if it is not harming anyone? If I argued that driving should be made illegal because it poses a greater risk of injury to self and others as opposed to recreation drug use (which causes no physical harm to anyone else in most circumstances) what would you say? [QUOTE=sami-elite;32454655]and in the end everyone has to pay for that person because they were being stupid.[/QUOTE] How does everyone have to pay? Are you claiming that recreational drug use causes physical harm to anyone else or are you arguing that it may cause emotional damage? And if it causes emotional damage why is it up to the government to protect people from emotional or physiological damage that could very well result from a variety of things more likely than drugs ( depending on the specific drug) that are perfectly legal such as alcohol? (see: [url]http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa30.htm[/url]) And I'm afraid you're are generalizing when you refer to drug user as being stupid. How can you assume rationally that all drug user are "stupid?
[QUOTE=Jabberwocky;32453820]So the way that people should learn that some drugs can ruin their lives is to ruin their lives with those drugs? Unfortunately, not everyone is as "strong" as you and I don't think that we should use these drugs to cull off the unfortunate. The reason I don't find the personal liberty approach convincing in these arguments is because once you're addicted, you don't "choose" to abuse the drug, you [i]have[/i] to. It no longer becomes a choice any more than it is to stop eating or drinking. [/QUOTE] Right now, once you're an addict, your life is pretty hard. Why? Because the shit is illegal and seeking help is almost impossible for most addicts. you're right, it stops being a choice for a lot of people because getting help ISN'T a choice because of the illegal nature of this. And locking those people up sure as hell isn't helping anything. As for why I think people should do drugs, I didn't say all people should, but you CAN'T decide this shit for other people. Please, for the love of god, tell me why YOU can decide that for other people. Why YOU can decide how those other peoples bodies are handled [QUOTE=Jabberwocky;32453820] And I hate this mentally that because it's too hard or isn't as glamourous as we hoped then we give up. Crimes like murder, rape and theft still keep happening and it will keep happening unless basically get an officer next to everyone 24/7 but that's no reason to allow them.[/QUOTE] People always say "well you can't stop murder like that so why give up on drugs like that" and it makes no sense. Drugs are not like murder and are not comparable to murder. They are not the same. They are not the same kind of crime. Murder is killing someone. Drugs are hurting yourself. Your moral aversion to drugs is just that, YOUR moral aversion. Also, I'd like to point out that the US drug was is the most expensive war in the worlds history and it has caused the opposite of what it wanted to happen, to happen. If the drug war was trying to stop drug use, it's failed on literally every level. Drug use since the start of the drug war has skyrocketed and it's stayed up there. You. Are. Not. Able. To. Dictate. Other. Peoples. Lives. It clearly doesn't work. What do you suggest? Police state?
Legalize most (anything except crack, heroine, coke). When there's demand for drugs, there will always be a supply to; fighting it is a loosing battle, the sooner the governments of the world realize the better.
Legalization over here works, but I don't know if it works for bigger countries.
[QUOTE=Rhinovirus;32456333]Are going to allow the government to dictate what you can or cannot do with your body? Regardless of the effects said drugs might have, I still view the right to my body as essential in a free society and even more so in a country that preaches it's freedom ( see: America). Would you have the government legislate driving to be illegal because the possibility of "destroying yourself"? Studies show that you have a 1 in 84 chance of dying in a car accident in a lifetime. (see: [url]http://reason.com/archives/2006/08/11/dont-be-terrorized[/url]) Does that not seem to be a more pressing matter to legislate because of the danger associated with it? Why should the government be bothered with people do for fun if it is not harming anyone? If I argued that driving should be made illegal because it poses a greater risk of injury to self and others as opposed to recreation drug use (which causes no physical harm to anyone else in most circumstances) what would you say? How does everyone have to pay? Are you claiming that recreational drug use causes physical harm to anyone else or are you arguing that it may cause emotional damage? And if it causes emotional damage why is it up to the government to protect people from emotional or physiological damage that could very well result from a variety of things more likely than drugs ( depending on the specific drug) that are perfectly legal such as alcohol? (see: [url]http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa30.htm[/url]) And I'm afraid you're are generalizing when you refer to drug user as being stupid. How can you assume rationally that all drug user are "stupid?[/QUOTE] Sorry i have social healthcare. When i need it, i get it, but when people fuck around, they also get it. And i meant drugs like desomorphine (crocodile), meth and crack. Every other pure form of drug should be available. [editline]24th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=koekje4life V2;32457884]Legalization over here works, but I don't know if it works for bigger countries.[/QUOTE] Portugal has it. Even legalized heroin.
marijuana i believe should be legalized because I've never seen it harm anyone and it makes you feel better, i don't see any reason not to have it legalized
Personally I think If we legalized weed, I cant see anything getting done. I can see conversations like this in the office work place. "Hey mark can I get those papers on my desk by Friday?" "Yeah man, what? I'll try. Maybe." "Alright man." Fuck it, lets legalize it. I don't smoke it but I know it can't do any harm if used in moderation.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;32457698]Right now, once you're an addict, your life is pretty hard. Why? Because the shit is illegal and seeking help is almost impossible for most addicts. you're right, it stops being a choice for a lot of people because getting help ISN'T a choice because of the illegal nature of this. And locking those people up sure as hell isn't helping anything. As for why I think people should do drugs, I didn't say all people should, but you CAN'T decide this shit for other people. Please, for the love of god, tell me why YOU can decide that for other people. Why YOU can decide how those other peoples bodies are handled People always say "well you can't stop murder like that so why give up on drugs like that" and it makes no sense. Drugs are not like murder and are not comparable to murder. They are not the same. They are not the same kind of crime. Murder is killing someone. Drugs are hurting yourself. Your moral aversion to drugs is just that, YOUR moral aversion. Also, I'd like to point out that the US drug was is the most expensive war in the worlds history and it has caused the opposite of what it wanted to happen, to happen. If the drug war was trying to stop drug use, it's failed on literally every level. Drug use since the start of the drug war has skyrocketed and it's stayed up there. You. Are. Not. Able. To. Dictate. Other. Peoples. Lives. It clearly doesn't work. What do you suggest? Police state?[/QUOTE] Because the state has the responsibility to look after it's citizens. I do not like that addicts feel pressured to not seek help because of the current laws and I would like to see drug use legalised, or at least not penalised. I have no aversion as to what people do to themselves and it is not my business but what I do not want legalised is the ability to profit from peddling dangerous substances to people that they can abuse; especially if they abuse these drugs not out of choice but because they are addicted to them. I think everyone should be able to do what they want as long as it does not infringe on other people rights and choices and profiting off the sale of dangerous compounds is exactly that. I have not been convinced that regulation works as I have not been presented a working model that I feel is adequate. With regards to the drug wars and cartels, we need to fight them not just because they produce and market illicit drugs but because they are crime organisations. Even if they did not make drugs, they probably wouldn't be particularly desirable people and more often than not find themselves on the wrong side of the law. I do not believe that the illicit nature of drugs is the root of the problem here. The reason I mentioned murder, rape and theft is simply because those were the first crimes that popped into my head.
[QUOTE=sami-elite;32458141]Sorry i have social healthcare. When i need it, i get it, but when people fuck around, they also get it. And i meant drugs like desomorphine (crocodile), meth and crack. Every other pure form of drug should be available. [editline]24th September 2011[/editline] Portugal has it. Even legalized heroin.[/QUOTE] Portugal legalized nothing, they decriminalized drug possesion which is pretty different to legalizing.
[QUOTE=Jabberwocky;32465967]Because the state has the responsibility to look after it's citizens. I do not like that addicts feel pressured to not seek help because of the current laws and I would like to see drug use legalised, or at least not penalised. I have no aversion as to what people do to themselves and it is not my business but what I do not want legalised is the ability to profit from peddling dangerous substances to people that they can abuse; especially if they abuse these drugs not out of choice but because they are addicted to them. [/QUOTE] Yes, the state has that responsibility. So, should the state ensure you eat your food and vegetables? Should the state ensure that you're perfectly healthy at all times? Frankly, there's a line to be drawn, and everyone will draw that line at different places. Personally, I draw that line when you, and the government are saying you know what's best for me and what should go in my body and what not. [QUOTE=Jabberwocky;32465967] I think everyone should be able to do what they want as long as it does not infringe on other people rights and choices and profiting off the sale of dangerous compounds is exactly that. I have not been convinced that regulation works as I have not been presented a working model that I feel is adequate. [/QUOTE] Uh, no, it isn't. It would be if they PUSHED it, or held a gun to you to use it, but you're acting like taking that first hit or use wasn't their choice. I think most people know drugs are addictive and can be harmful, I think the people that continue either don't care, or don't want to care. Do you know about Portugual or are you another one of those anti drug posters that just ignores the existence of that system 100% because you're ideological about drug use. [QUOTE=Jabberwocky;32465967] With regards to the drug wars and cartels, we need to fight them not just because they produce and market illicit drugs but because they are crime organisations. Even if they did not make drugs, they probably wouldn't be particularly desirable people and more often than not find themselves on the wrong side of the law. I do not believe that the illicit nature of drugs is the root of the problem here.[/QUOTE] This is the dumbest thing I've read all week. Why do those drug cartels exist? Oh, that's right, to meet an illegal markets needs. Where do they exist? In a country that ISN'T the US. Where's their biggest market? The US. Why is this? Because those substances are illegal and that demand that's already there must be filled. People will profit off of literally any human behaviour, I'd rather they did it safely and legally and cut out the illegal bullshit. Yeah, sure, those people probably aren't desirable, but are you seriously going to tell me people will start crime like drug trafficking when there is no profit to be made? These people are criminals BECAUSE the drug war, BECAUSE the profits that are to be made, not the other way around for fucks sakes. That's backwards. Then what DO you believe to be the problem? Drugs aren't bad, and the sooner you realize this and drop this ideological bullshit, the better off we all are. [QUOTE=Jabberwocky;32465967] The reason I mentioned murder, rape and theft is simply because those were the first crimes that popped into my head.[/QUOTE] I don't care that's the first thing to pop in your head when it's completely and totally irrelevant and worthless as an arguing piece. The crimes are so fucking different it baffles the mind you think they're the same. Suicide as a crime is more like drug use than murder, theft or rape, so don't use those as comparisons. [editline]24th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Stormcharger;32466357]Portugal legalized nothing, they decriminalized drug possesion which is pretty different to legalizing.[/QUOTE] yes and no. They legalized it in the sense you can now own and use it and the government can produce it(decriminalization makes a substance legal to own and use, but not legal to create or distribute, this is half the case in portugual) but what makes Portuguals legalization stand out is that they have a 10 day "grace" period, where you can own your drugs, but you can't own them longer than 10 days. [editline]24th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Peppermint;32465326]Personally I think If we legalized weed, I cant see anything getting done. I can see conversations like this in the office work place. "Hey mark can I get those papers on my desk by Friday?" "Yeah man, what? I'll try. Maybe." "Alright man." Fuck it, lets legalize it. I don't smoke it but I know it can't do any harm if used in moderation.[/QUOTE] WHY DO PEOPLE THINK THIS? Why does everyone against legalizing seem to think all people will suddenly become drug users 24/7. It's not legal to be drunk on the job, do you think for a second it would legal to be high on the job? REALLY? [editline]24th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=sami-elite;32458141]Sorry i have social healthcare. When i need it, i get it, but when people fuck around, they also get it. And i meant drugs like desomorphine (crocodile), meth and crack. Every other pure form of drug should be available. [editline]24th September 2011[/editline] Portugal has it. Even legalized heroin.[/QUOTE] Yeah, so lets create a system of legalization and healthcare. They're intertwined issues so the answers should be dealt with together. Drug abusers and addicts of hard/heavy drugs should be refused the NHS orequivalent service that they have access to unless they pay with their own money. Soft drug users and abusers would have greater access to the same healthcare system. I agree that it's stupid to let people who are actively going to destroy their bodies have all the free healthcare they want(well, inmates get this, I personally don't see why we all can't have that level of care) because it's just going to be a pit of money.
Legalize marijuana, as well as mushrooms. I have mixed feelings about legalizing hard drugs, there are a lot of pros and cons to the legalization of hard drugs, however I feel that marijuana and mushrooms are harmless, and shouldn't be illegal substances.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;32467362]Yes, the state has that responsibility. So, should the state ensure you eat your food and vegetables? Should the state ensure that you're perfectly healthy at all times? Frankly, there's a line to be drawn, and everyone will draw that line at different places. Personally, I draw that line when you, and the government are saying you know what's best for me and what should go in my body and what not. [/quote] For some drugs, there is no question about how harmful something is to you. Again, while I think people should not abuse these drugs I know that it is a personal choice. This is why I have no qualms about the legalisation of drug use or possession. Nonetheless, these laws for trafficking should still exist if just to make people aware that this is not a socially endorse activity (even if it is difficult and/or unfeasible to enforce. The spirit of the law is more important than the letter in my opinion) [quote]Uh, no, it isn't. It would be if they PUSHED it, or held a gun to you to use it, but you're acting like taking that first hit or use wasn't their choice. I think most people know drugs are addictive and can be harmful, I think the people that continue either don't care, or don't want to care. Do you know about Portugual or are you another one of those anti drug posters that just ignores the existence of that system 100% because you're ideological about drug use. [/quote] How can you say otherwise when the company knows that there is a high chance of someone being addicted? Do you expect distributers to play dumb and say they didn't expect that their highly addictive product caused addiction? I am aware of Portugal's decriminalisation to drug possession and use and I would like to see that introduced elsewhere. Keep in mind that possession of 10 days worth of personal use is still prohibited. [quote]This is the dumbest thing I've read all week. Why do those drug cartels exist? Oh, that's right, to meet an illegal markets needs. Where do they exist? In a country that ISN'T the US. Where's their biggest market? The US. Why is this? Because those substances are illegal and that demand that's already there must be filled. People will profit off of literally any human behaviour, I'd rather they did it safely and legally and cut out the illegal bullshit. Yeah, sure, those people probably aren't desirable, but are you seriously going to tell me people will start crime like drug trafficking when there is no profit to be made? These people are criminals BECAUSE the drug war, BECAUSE the profits that are to be made, not the other way around for fucks sakes. That's backwards. Then what DO you believe to be the problem? Drugs aren't bad, and the sooner you realize this and drop this ideological bullshit, the better off we all are. [/QUOTE] The problem is social; inequality and the surrounding culture. If not drug trafficking then something else. Besides, do you believe that when trafficking is legal that they'll suddenly stop profitting when their market is made so much larger? While in Portugal drug use didn't increase but it didn't decrease either. Will these cartels leave potential competitors alone when they've been shown to not think twice about involving civilians in crossfire? I have stated again and again that I do not believe drugs are evil.
[QUOTE=Jabberwocky;32468058]For some drugs, there is no question about how harmful something is to you. Again, while I think people should not abuse these drugs I know that it is a personal choice. This is why I have no qualms about the legalisation of drug use or possession. Nonetheless, these laws for trafficking should still exist if just to make people aware that this is not a socially endorse activity (even if it is difficult and/or unfeasible to enforce. The spirit of the law is more important than the letter in my opinion) [/QUOTE] Yes, so? Still perfectly within your own rights. You seem to believe that drugs will differ from alcohol in terms of distrubition and regulation. Why is this? You're not going to be able to just buy drugs and sell them without a license. I'm not saying "STOP ALL LAWS AGAINST ANY AND ALL DRUGS" and if you are, I'd like to know how you got that idea. What I am saying is that if they're regulated like alcohol and cigarettes are, what little problems there are with that system in terms of illegal sales will be very similar to the problems we'll see with legalization [QUOTE=Jabberwocky;32468058] How can you say otherwise when the company knows that there is a high chance of someone being addicted? Do you expect distributers to play dumb and say they didn't expect that their highly addictive product caused addiction? I am aware of Portugal's decriminalisation to drug possession and use and I would like to see that introduced elsewhere. Keep in mind that possession of 10 days worth of personal use is still prohibited.[/QUOTE] Honestly, I don't. They'll do just as cigarettes will do, but i full well believe that proper and careful regulation will exist to stop a lot of that. And why not in order to counter these addictive substances, don't we start creating REAL rehab centres and deal with addiction in that manner and then, you'll see a lot less problems. [QUOTE=Jabberwocky;32468058] The problem is social; inequality and the surrounding culture. If not drug trafficking then something else. Besides, do you believe that when trafficking is legal that they'll suddenly stop profitting when their market is made so much larger? While in Portugal drug use didn't increase but it didn't decrease either. Will these cartels leave potential competitors alone when they've been shown to not think twice about involving civilians in crossfire? I have stated again and again that I do not believe drugs are evil.[/QUOTE] Yes, drug use comes out of inequality, you hit the nail on the head. Drug use also comes out of the taboo nature of drugs. It also comes out of the massive amount of misinformation on all sides of the drug war. It comes out of disparity, out of a lot of things, but drug trafficking is only a side effect of illegal demand. Without so much illegal demand, and more legal demand and legal methods to get the substances as well as deal with the addictions that would rise out of the situation. And what the hell are you talking about? Portugal had Europe worst drug problem, and once it changed the drug policy from strict prohibition to this they say massive decline. Its fair enough to question whether the system would work perfectly else where, but it would have to be tweaked either way. It really hardly seems like that when you still want to have a drug war one sentence then talk about legalization the next. [url]http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf[/url] In this it details a few different graphs and info with them. The only drug that saw a rise was marijuana, the dealers profits saw massive cuts, and the legal system readily took over. No druggie WANTS to buy from an illegal dealer. So why would they continue?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.