I think this thread has veered right into GD territory, but anyway…
Arguments that claim drug users and abusers should be incarcerated as a means of forcing them to stop using are foolish.
How is one to be an effective member of a family if he’s been thrown in jail for possession of marijuana? And how is this hypothetical drug user’s work performance going to improve as he cools his heels in jail?
And then we get to the health care argument. It looks compelling for a moment actually. It’s true that a heavy drug user may become so dependent on their drug that he is unable to work and is forced to depend on the state for medical care. In such cases, yes, he would be a burden. It’s also true that he may have developed health care issues such as HIV or Hepatitis C from his drug habit though the rates of infection from shared needle use for both of these diseases would, IMO, drop if some drugs were legalized or penalities were lowered. In such an environment, a drug user would be more likely to go to clinics for free needles, health testing, etc.
When Canada made a move toward decriminalizing pot, the Bush administration made a lot of noise about how wrong it was and meddled rather extensively. I can’t imagine that Vladimir Putin would give a shit what Dubya and friends think about such a shift in policy.
Well… Back when I actually rolled joints, it was about average for me to get 8 or so out of a quarter. (I reeaaallly suck at it though…) I’ve seen people use rolling machines and get about 5 well packed ones, so I’d assume if you use slightly bigger papers, it wouldn’t be that hard.
Yup, we should just make drugs legal. That way people could just throw their lives away, beholden to an addiction that has taken control of them.
Because we all know that our current drug laws have prevented everyone who wants drugs from getting their hands on them and thus nobody has ever thrown their life away for drugs because of our wonderful anti-drug laws.
Sheesh. I’m pretty much on the fence when it comes to drug legalization but even I can see that what we’re currently doing isn’t working.
Wait, wait, wait. Define “suitable for recreational use”. If it’s fun, it’s recreational. Y’know what? Gettin’ high can be loads of fun.
Try it sometime.
So? I love the taste of weed. Does that mean I’m allowed to smoke it now?
(I just love watching the anti-druggies desperately scramble to justify their bias.)
Does that mean you’d support a ban on any alcohol with a proof greater than, say, 20?
So? You need to establish that it influences one in an inherently negative way. Just because some newbie lightweight takes a few too many 'shrooms his first time, that doesn’t mean it’s a negative substance. Just one that requires about the same level of judgment as liquor.
I could easily eat an entire double-fudge chocolate cake in a couple of hours. Mmm… And I’d really enjoy it. But, it would most likely screw me up real good. What it all comes down to is moderation. Unfortunately, not everyone is responsible or strong enough (willpower-wise) to limit themselves when it comes to many activities.