• Pro-Legalization vs Prohibition of "Drugs"
    388 replies, posted
[QUOTE=boomboy223;32467742]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] If you are in favour of mushrooms being legalized why not lsd?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;32468270]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] For anything except the harder, more addictive drugs; I expect that if legalised they'll follow a model similar to alcohol and nicotine (though I feel as though those two industries already get away with more than they should). However, how do you even begin to regulate a drug that is especially dangerous? If a pharmaceutical company's product is found to have too severe adverse side effects then it gets taken off market. How do you hold a company accountable when you've knowingly let them sell toxic substances to people? And in regards in alcohol and cigarettes, yes illegal sales aren't a problem but addiction to these compounds is widespread. I'd rather avoid people being addicted to any drug. [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] Effective rehab centres should be available in any case. A method to prevent people from being addicted in the first place is preferable to trying to cure them of addiction; especially when the risk of relapse is so high. I do not believe that making illicit drugs more available will do that. [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.[/QUOTE] When I was talking about inequality and cultural aspects I was refering to the existance of cartels. You do not have to be down on your luck or even unhappy to start taking drugs. I do not believe that drugs are profitable for some people just because they are illegal. I want each and every drug to be considered individually and have its risks determined. I want there to be a threshold when the risk is too high and the state steps in to say "No, you cannot sell this to people." [editline]25th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;32468270] [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?[/QUOTE] I read the summary of a paper ([url]http://www.idt.pt/PT/IDT/Documents/Ponto_Focal/2009_NationalReport.pdf[/url]) that said more or less the same thing. This is why I'm ok with something similar to Portugal's drug laws where distribution is still effectively prohibited but possession and use is ok. With the harder, more addictive drugs, will the government have to keep supplying more and more to addicts and the doses they need increases? If they draw the line then the addicts will have to go to other, more questionable distributers. Will they have to force people into rehab? If not the government, then we have outside companies that are just out to make a buck from this suffering which is what I want to avoid.
[QUOTE=Jabberwocky;32468644]For anything except the harder, more addictive drugs; I expect that if legalised they'll follow a model similar to alcohol and nicotine (though I feel as though those two industries already get away with more than they should). However, how do you even begin to regulate a drug that is especially dangerous? If a pharmaceutical company's product is found to have too severe adverse side effects then it gets taken off market. How do you hold a company accountable when you've knowingly let them sell toxic substances to people? And in regards in alcohol and cigarettes, yes illegal sales aren't a problem but addiction to these compounds is widespread. I'd rather avoid people being addicted to any drug.[/QUOTE] It's difficult admittedly, but who can you control better? Criminal cartels or pharmaceutical? I'd like it if addiction didn't happen too, but i'd also like to see death cured. It's just not going to happen. Go rewrite time and get rid of any substance we can ever abuse, and guess what? We'll STILL be addicted to a lot of things. [QUOTE=Jabberwocky;32468644] Effective rehab centres should be available in any case. A method to prevent people from being addicted in the first place is preferable to trying to cure them of addiction; especially when the risk of relapse is so high. I do not believe that making illicit drugs more available will do that.[/QUOTE] Should be, but they're not and probably won't be as long as the drug war continues. So why not institute a system where they check your ID, same as liquor and ciggs, and your ID or permit to buy your drug of choice must inform them whether they can sell to you or not. Addiction exists, and it's not a good thing, but you're really naive. [QUOTE=Jabberwocky;32468644] When I was talking about inequality and cultural aspects I was refering to the existance of cartels. You do not have to be down on your luck or even unhappy to start taking drugs. I do not believe that drugs are profitable for some people just because they are illegal. [/QUOTE] No, drugs aren't only profitable because they're illegal, but the only people who profit off of them are criminals who have no reason to not break the law anymore than they already are. If you legalize them and have new companies that exist to fulfill these demands, slap em full of reasonable regulation to stop them from abusing their clientel. [QUOTE=Jabberwocky;32468644] I want each and every drug to be considered individually and have its risks determined. I want there to be a threshold when the risk is too high and the state steps in to say "No, you cannot sell this to people."[/QUOTE] You may be protecting people, but that's really not going to stop people from doing said drug or creating it or selling it. How do you stop people from doing a drug that can be made in their own homes with over the counter shit? Police state? [QUOTE=Jabberwocky;32468644] I read the summary of a paper ([url]http://www.idt.pt/PT/IDT/Documents/Ponto_Focal/2009_NationalReport.pdf[/url]) that said more or less the same thing. This is why I'm ok with something similar to Portugal's drug laws where distribution is still effectively prohibited but possession and use is ok. With the harder, more addictive drugs, will the government have to keep supplying more and more to addicts and the doses they need increases? If they draw the line then the addicts will have to go to other, more questionable distributers. Will they have to force people into rehab? If not the government, then we have outside companies that are just out to make a buck from this suffering which is what I want to avoid.[/QUOTE] Someone is making a buck off of anything anywhere, it's just what happens. I'm not going to defend it, but it's going to happen. What we can do is minimize the harm from that buck and what came out of it. I don't believe rehab should ever be turned into "for profit" because that's so backwards it hurts, but yes, a line will have to be drawn somewhere, any line would be arbitrary so who can say where it should really go, and no, you can't send someone to rehab if they don't want to go. It doesn't work like that. Addiction doesn't work like that.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;32468866]It's difficult admittedly, but who can you control better? Criminal cartels or pharmaceutical? I'd like it if addiction didn't happen too, but i'd also like to see death cured. It's just not going to happen. Go rewrite time and get rid of any substance we can ever abuse, and guess what? We'll STILL be addicted to a lot of things. [/quote] I wonder if we could make a co-drug that could reduce the addictive properties of current, highly addictive drugs. In the mean time, I think the best action is to restrict access to these drugs. [quote]Should be, but they're not and probably won't be as long as the drug war continues. So why not institute a system where they check your ID, same as liquor and ciggs, and your ID or permit to buy your drug of choice must inform them whether they can sell to you or not. Addiction exists, and it's not a good thing, but you're really naive. [/quote] I'm sorry but I can't puzzle out how this was a rebuttal to my statement. In anycase, regulation does not change the fact that some of those illicit drugs and highly addictive and dangerous unless regulation means selling them in doses so low that they are little more than placebos. [quote]No, drugs aren't only profitable because they're illegal, but the only people who profit off of them are criminals who have no reason to not break the law anymore than they already are. If you legalize them and have new companies that exist to fulfill these demands, slap em full of reasonable regulation to stop them from abusing their clientel. [/quote] Like I mentioned before, I wouldn't be surprised if those cartels that don't shy away from killing civilians would find ways to dissuade competitors. And how can a company [b]not[/b] abuse their clientele when they're selling them dangerous and addictive substances? [quote] You may be protecting people, but that's really not going to stop people from doing said drug or creating it or selling it. How do you stop people from doing a drug that can be made in their own homes with over the counter shit? Police state?[/quote] Any more than you can stop people from not wearing seat belts. Spirit of the law over the letter. [quote] Someone is making a buck off of anything anywhere, it's just what happens. I'm not going to defend it, but it's going to happen. What we can do is minimize the harm from that buck and what came out of it. I don't believe rehab should ever be turned into "for profit" because that's so backwards it hurts, but yes, a line will have to be drawn somewhere, any line would be arbitrary so who can say where it should really go, and no, you can't send someone to rehab if they don't want to go. It doesn't work like that. Addiction doesn't work like that.[/QUOTE] You see, I'm not convinced that harm will be minimised. Crime organisations will still hurt people (if not with drugs then with something else. I don't think they'll just vanish into thin air). People are still profiting from drug abusers still abuse drugs. Now it's just allowed by the state.
I vote for the decriminalisation of all drugs. Weed should be completely legal and regulated in the same manor as alcohol (Where you can buy it from the shops like a pack of cigarettes, grow it yourself, and licensed bars can sell it, as well as buying your own licence for your own establishment). Other drugs should have a limit on how much you can carry on your self. There should also be self check-in rehab centers, and for families who fear their child/spouse/friend or whatever is a danger to themselves with their drug use, then they can call the authorities to take that person away for evaluation or whether they should be checked into rehab (Such as people with mental disabilities). Gives everyone the freedom to do what they want with their body while still being able to help the people who need it.
[QUOTE=fenwick;32388977]Keeping them illegal would ideally reduce usage. Which is good in my book. I don't think hard drugs are good for society as a whole, or individuals. They're unsafe and can cause dependencies. People are stupid and make bad decisions about drugs, and yes, I think sometimes people need to be told what is best for them, especially when accurate information about drugs is hard to come by. Unfortunately, keeping them illegal doesn't really work as well as intended, and increases gang violence. And I ultimately do want people to be able to make their own educated decisions about things like drug usage, but the problem is that sometimes people don't know what they're getting into, especially youth. And as I said before, drugs being illegal does deter some people from them. Unfortunately, it's hard to get good information from people on either side of the debate, because the people I usually hear from that are pro-legalization are obviously biased by their desire for drugs, and those against it play it up like if we legalize drugs, everyone and their daughter will OD on crack. I rarely actually see a good, two-sided discussion on it, which makes it hard for people like me to actually form an opinion.[/QUOTE] I disagree. Drugs are causing much more harm BECAUSE they're prohibited. Pay attention to what's happening in Mexico, every day people are slaughtered over the Drug War. I use the term "slaughtered" quite literally here; people are burned alive, mutilated, raped, killed, and their corpses paraded. Los Zetas, one of the worst cartels, literally cut off HEADS and throw them into Kindergartens. They hang corpses off of bridges... They burned two friends of a friend of mine alive. It was a mother and a young woman from Russia. They posed no threat, had NOTHING to do with the drug trade, and yet they were raped, held for ransom, and then burnt alive. I don't care if someone wants to take drugs and ruin their own life. They can do it already, it's readily available, especially in California. Rehab options are already available. The way prohibition is going now, it's already affecting people who have no involvement in drugs at all. If people want them, drugs can be obtained. Prohibiting them won't stop the flow. All drugs need to be legalized. No more funding for powerful, government-corrupting organized crime syndicates. We need legitimate market competition in order to decrease drug prices and to take funding away from organized crime. It worked during the alcohol prohibition era in the 1920s, it will work now. Only good can come from this.
I'm writing an argumentative speach about legalising cannabis, so obviously I'm for doing it.
[QUOTE=Stormcharger;32468606]If you are in favour of mushrooms being legalized why not lsd?[/QUOTE] I'm not necessarily against any drug being legalized, but I'm just not sure about others. Although, you bring a valid point, so why not? Honestly, I'm for all drugs being legalized, as long as there is some regulation to keep young children safe.
Drugs are highly addictive shouldn't be legalized though.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;32477370]Drugs are highly addictive shouldn't be legalized though.[/QUOTE] Did you mean to say which are? How about a scheme where if you want to do drugs you have to get a license, and to get the license you had to take tests which require a lot of knowledge about the drugs you wish to take. Also make it so that you have to pay money monthly to keep your license and have different grades A, B and C, where a class A license lets you have all drugs however it costs the most to have. Also have drug purchases logged on your account and if you have too many purchases of a highly addictive drug per week a person comes to your house and offers you rehab which will be free as its payed for from the license fees. With a bit of refinement I think my Idea would work quite well.
Yeah I meant which are. And I don't really think you should ever be allowed to try heavy drugs, almost never, especially not for your enjoyment.
Weed should be legalized because we could bring money into the state by growing it. Now about psychedelics should be legal for medical purposes being the reason they help get rid of cluster headaches. Or we could do what some countries did and legalize everything and see if the drug use goes down.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;32477554]Yeah I meant which are. And I don't really think you should ever be allowed to try heavy drugs, almost never, especially not for your enjoyment.[/QUOTE] What drugs count as heavy drugs in your opinion? [editline]25th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=confinedUser;32477609]Weed should be legalized because we could bring money into the state by growing it. Now about psychedelics should be legal for medical purposes being the reason they help get rid of cluster headaches. Or we could do what some countries did and legalize everything and see if the drug use goes down.[/QUOTE] Yo man the cluster headache argument doesnt work because its actually a non psychedelic form of LSD which is used for the headaches
Those that are directly dangerous for your health and addictive.
A lot of those can still be used responsibly though
[QUOTE=boomboy223;32477312]I'm for all drugs being legalized, as long as there is some regulation to keep young children safe.[/QUOTE] There should be protections to keep parents from giving drugs to their children for non medicinal purposes. It isn't the parent's role to determine what substance has medicinal purpose and if it is applicable to children, only qualified doctors can make that call. Really this claim is nothing new, as if I have a right to my body, I have a right to not be intoxicated against my will. Where people seem to miss it completely is where there'll be a story about a mother who blew marijuana smoke in her baby's face and the main question on people's minds is if that should be allowed due to damage the smoke could cause. This is a completely wrong way of thinking because it implies that the parent has a right to intoxicate their child without reason if it does no harm, and a child has a right to not be intoxicated against its will. Certainly there are many situations where force may be required to be taken out on a child, and the force is justified. Children hate getting shots, yet it is best to force them to get them. Intoxication may be forced on a child as a result of treatment, such as chemotherapy, but there is no comparison. As far as the claim you are making, it mostly revolves sale, and the argument I would make is that it makes no sense to sell a child a product in which they may not understand the risks. Certainly there is an implied contract with tobacco, by smoking this product you accept the risk of lung many types of cancer, yet the issue with children and contracts is that they are capable of understand them. I think one of the worst policies is determining the age of adulthood by an arbitrary age.
[QUOTE=Stormcharger;32477809]A lot of those can still be used responsibly though[/QUOTE] Ofcourse they can, but there is a very high chance they won't. Whatever someone knows about a drug won't really make them more reliable. The chance of them getting addicted and unreasonable is still just as big.
But I think the fact that their is free rehab in my idea would make that acceptable. You could make it so people could lose their drug license as well
I don't know. Would you want people checking on you all the time to make sure you're drinking alcohol in moderate amount and control everything you do with it? People don't go into rehab voluntarily.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;32478135]I don't know. Would you want people checking on you all the time to make sure you're drinking alcohol in moderate amount and control everything you do with it? People don't go into rehab voluntarily.[/QUOTE] But practically, the drug war has failed and these people that shouldn't be doing the substances are still doing them. Whats the solution? We can't tighten up much more, you can't stop people from doing it, educating them to the best of their ability then legalizing is probably going to be a lot better than a prohibition stand point.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;32477370]Drugs are highly addictive shouldn't be legalized though.[/QUOTE] What am I suppose to do with this? Assume your rational and make a counter argument hoping I know your reasoning? [QUOTE=MrJazzy;32477554]Yeah I meant which are. And I don't really think you should ever be allowed to try heavy drugs, almost never, especially not for your enjoyment.[/QUOTE] This provides no insight whatsoever. [QUOTE=MrJazzy;32477731]Those that are directly dangerous for your health and addictive.[/QUOTE] As long as a person is made aware of the risks, I don't see the issue. It is clear that someone should have the right to commit suicide, so why shouldn't they also have the right to do damage to their own body in smaller incremental. For more on the suicide issue see the thread on it. Really, to make sure an assertion is to claim right to other people's body's, "I know what is best for you and as part owner of your body I am not allowing you do this activity". If you are not aware of how this logic works, you can not make a law limiting what you can do without first maintaining that you have a jurisdiction over it. This is to say Canada can only write laws about Canada, and Canada can not write laws regarding the USA because Canada has no jurisdiction or ownership over the USA. Just in the same way, the government must claim jurisdiction or ownership of people in order to make certain types of restrictions, such as prohibiting drug usage and suicide. Just in the same way, it makes no sense for there to be any law prohibiting the use of drugs unless you can maintain that the government is part or full owner of a their citizens. This is similar to the seat belt and motor cycle helmet debate. You may misunderstand the logic and assume it dictates that no law can exist, and that'd only be true if only one person existed. [QUOTE=Stormcharger;32477491]How about a scheme where if you want to do drugs you have to get a license, and to get the license you had to take tests which require a lot of knowledge about the drugs you wish to take. Also make it so that you have to pay money monthly to keep your license and have different grades A, B and C, where a class A license lets you have all drugs however it costs the most to have. Also have drug purchases logged on your account and if you have too many purchases of a highly addictive drug per week a person comes to your house and offers you rehab which will be free as its payed for from the license fees.[/QUOTE] Sounds like a terrible idea as it would be subject to higher licensing payments and scrutiny due to its nature and those who do not wish to pay the licencing amount, want to learn, or fail to learn will simply return to the black market. I realize that people are in favor or regulation, yet you never want to be in favor of regulation that encourages people to go back to the black market. Imagine that after we legalized alcohol we also put a 10,000% sin tax on it and required monthly licencing in order for people to buy alcohol. Though alcohol is legal, the black market is likely to still thrive as the regulations are far too extreme. Yes, this example is quite extreme, but it's to get across the point that you don't want too much regulation. I have a difficult time imagining your proposal would work out, especially with politicians having control.
I'm not for allowing suicide anyways and I've been arguing in that thread. But if we can't have laws to protect people, why do we even have laws at all?
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;32478835]I'm not for allowing suicide anyways and I've been arguing in that thread. But if we can't have laws to protect people, why do we even have laws at all?[/QUOTE] The government and people alike are not there to protect you from yourself. That's kind of defeating the purpose of actually living your own life if everyone else has a say in how you live it, but not you. You're essentially saying that no one owns their own body. Personally, i can't stand that view point.
cheeses me off more and more when people are under the assumption of doing "hard" drugs instantly fucks up their body There are people who shot up on coke and heroin for years, detoxed and are doing pretty fine right now. Worst thing about (hard) drugs is addiction, imo.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;32478835]I'm not for allowing suicide anyways and I've been arguing in that thread. But if we can't have laws to protect people, why do we even have laws at all?[/QUOTE] We shouldn't have those types of laws. The fact that the laws exist is not evidence that they are legitimate. Laws should be to protect individuals from other individuals.
legalize all durgs, it prevents black markets and all the shit thats going down in mexico atm. regulate durgs so its clear what people are using and how much. we can also gain knowledge on health effects short and long term tax drugs, so we can prevent another great drepression and maybe even more important; another world war. drugs sold should contain a leaflet explaining proper usage and how to prevent any nasties. everything that happens afterwards is done at own risk, no blaming the drugs. schools need to educate kids about drugs real early, theres been more than enough cases of kids playing with syringes found on the playground. just legalize it, were only cutting ourselves with the current situation
[QUOTE=Zeemlapje;32480199]tax drugs, so we can prevent another great drepression and maybe even more important; another world war.[/QUOTE] This is where you lost me. If you're going to make a claim like this, please back it up. [QUOTE=Zeemlapje;32480199]drugs sold should contain a leaflet explaining proper usage and how to prevent any nasties. everything that happens afterwards is done at own risk, no blaming the drugs.[/quote] I would agree to a point. There is also a certain hazard to this is that the more to read, the less willing people will be to read it. Drug companies have been known for having drugs with lists with huge side effect, yet most of them on there are to avoid being sued and rather offer a disincentive for the consumer to be aware of the side effects of the drug. There are a decent amount of studies showing that people are less likely to read warnings directions when there is much more to read. [QUOTE=Zeemlapje;32480199]schools need to educate kids about drugs real early, theres been more than enough cases of kids playing with syringes found on the playground.[/quote] Second grade isn't early enough? It's like people who are arguing that sex education needs to be taught at a lower age.
I seen enough addicts walking about in a daze as it is when drugs are illegal.. I dont think it would cut down crime because small quantities would cost a fortune, people would still get addicted and still commit crimes to get cash to buy it. It would be interesting to see how many people in this thread have had family or friends have their lives ruined by drug addiction.. I knew a girl who started taking heroin at 17, before that she was a pretty girl and had a semi normal life... she is 24 now, has no teeth left, veins in her arms are fucked from injecting so she started injecting into her lower body and has deep vein thrombosis god knows how many times.. and often sells her self to some old guy to go out and pay for heroin. I know people who are so paranoid from smoking skunk through their early teens right through to mid 20s they dont even wanna leave the house, no job no money no life.. stoned all day everyday lazy as fuck.
[QUOTE=Bang2Rights;32481152]I seen enough addicts walking about in a daze as it is when drugs are illegal.. I dont think it would cut down crime because small quantities would cost a fortune, people would still get addicted and still commit crimes to get cash to buy it. It would be interesting to see how many people in this thread have had family or friends have their lives ruined by drug addiction.. I knew a girl who started taking heroin at 17, before that she was a pretty girl and had a semi normal life... she is 24 now, has no teeth left, veins in her arms are fucked from injecting so she started injecting into her lower body and has deep vein thrombosis god knows how many times.. and often sells her self to some old guy to go out and pay for heroin. I know people who are so paranoid from smoking skunk through their early teens right through to mid 20s they dont even wanna leave the house, no job no money no life.. stoned all day everyday lazy as fuck.[/QUOTE] Clearly she ruined her own life by having no self control. I understand heroin is extremely addictive but many people have kicked the habit. If it was legal and she had a drug problem she could of easily gone to a help center where she would receive help without legal prosecution. Another scenario would of been she is stealing as in most heroin addicts do and when she is caught she is evaluated for her addiction and recieves help instead of being thrown in the slammer. The government has no place to tell me what I can and cannot ingest from the sanctity of my own home. As long as I am not infringing upon the rights of other individuals than why should drugs be illegal. It'd be safer to purchase things like LSD, Ecstasy/MDMA, Cocaine, Heroin, and DMT from a registered distributor that I know is giving me something that will be safe in a controlled amount. Also prohibition does not work, its easier to buy drugs when your under 21 than it is to buy alcohol.
[QUOTE=Bang2Rights;32481152]I seen enough addicts walking about in a daze as it is when drugs are illegal..[/quote] And? What is the purpose of such a statement, that you with drug use and don't like seeing people on drugs walking down the street? That this will also occur with legislation? Of course it will, granted there are no laws are against public intoxication, though that law becomes difficult to enforce with marijuana and other drugs. What's really wrong with this is that you'd prefer to use the law to fine and imprison people because you simply don't agree with what they do. [QUOTE=Bang2Rights;32481152]I dont think it would cut down crime because small quantities would cost a fortune, people would still get addicted and still commit crimes to get cash to buy it.[/quote] Which is backed up by? I can cite any [url=http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/Miron2003.pdf]study[/url] on the matter the say that the prices would be lower, or I could cite common sense and say that the majority of drugs are weeds and that through process of mass production that there is no way that the legalized price could come close. [QUOTE=Bang2Rights;32481152]It would be interesting to see how many people in this thread have had family or friends have their lives ruined by drug addiction..[/quote] Prohibition makes the issue of addiction far worse because the price is far increased which increases the individual likelihood to commit crime. What incentive does someone have to steal when they are addicted to a product that is very costly as opposed to when they are addicted to a product that is not very costly? [url=http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/magazine/nicotine-harder-to-kickthan-heroin.html]Nicotine for example is addictive as heroin[/url], yet how much is crime is committed by nicotine addicts? Furthermore, there is no need to mention the black market crime and the shady goods. [QUOTE=Bang2Rights;32481152]I knew a girl who started taking heroin at 17, before that she was a pretty girl and had a semi normal life... she is 24 now, has no teeth left, veins in her arms are fucked from injecting so she started injecting into her lower body and has deep vein thrombosis god knows how many times.. and often sells her self to some old guy to go out and pay for heroin. I know people who are so paranoid from smoking skunk through their early teens right through to mid 20s they dont even wanna leave the house, no job no money no life.. stoned all day everyday lazy as fuck.[/QUOTE] Yes, surely prohibition stopped this from occurring. That's why we need more of it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.