They would become more popular but not by an insane margin, and the personal and societal harms of drugs would be reduced - less taxpayer money wasted, less drug overdoses and impure drugs, less associated violent crime, less people in prison, less allure of it being taboo, etc.
No, my thesis is, “You don’t have the right to tell people what to do if they’re not coercing others.” That’s all the justification I need.
But while we’re on the subject of prohibition, let’s talk about that, shall we? Let’s look at the effect of the war on drugs:
[ul]
[li]The U.S. has the highest incarceration rates in the world. Currently, over seven million Americans are either in jail or on probation/parole. Over half of them are for drug offenses, and many others are for crimes committed in support of the drug trade or the high cost of illegal drug habits.[/li][li]A million people a year are jailed for drug-related offenses, and a quarter of those are for use of marijuana, one of the safest recreational drugs known to man (much safer than tobacco or alcohol, both legal).[/li][li]Street gangs living off the drug trade make life miserable for people in the inner cities.[/li][li]The U.S. has high homicide rates, and gang violence is a primary contributor to that. Gangs exist in the numbers they do primarily because of the drug trade.[/li][li]Drug lords have been murdering people and destabilizing countries all through Central America, and now in Mexico right on the U.S. border. In 2006, over 2,000 Mexicans were murdered in gang killings attributed to the drug trade.[/li][li]The poppy trade in Afghanistan has contributed to that country’s misery and helped fund the Taliban. The war on drugs is currently undermining the war in Afghanistan because the U.S. opposes the poppy fields, which is one of the primary sources of income.[/li][li]The war on drugs costs Americans about 50 billion dollars a year.[/li][li]Finally, the National Research Council has concluded that the evidence that the drug war has even helped curb drug use is inconclusive at best.[/li][/ul]
That’s a hell of a lot of damage. Opposing that, we have your reasons for maintaining the drug war:
Sorry, but your reasons just don’t stack up. In fact, most of your assertions are groundless. Mental institutions will be filled with fuck ups? There’s no evidence for this. “Harm people cause to society in general”? They’re going to have to work pretty damned hard to beat the harm caused by the War on Drugs. In fact, there’s no evidence for this assertion either. Countries which have legalized or decriminalized drugs suffer none of the fates you say the U.S. will face. Canada has marijuana use levels much higher than the U.S., and yet we have low levels of violence and mental illness, and we’re doing just fine with our economy and levels of productivity.
In short, your assertions are just hypotheticals for which there is no evidence. Against that, we have a drug war that is costing thousands of lives and tens of billions of dollars a year, breaking up millions of families, destabilizing entire countries, funding terrorists, and playing havoc with the civil rights of Americans.
Ummmmm I’m ALL for legalizing pot. …Pot is nothing.
A lot of the pro legalizers almost seem to think that the only illegal drugs out there are pot.
That said, you’re missing the point that while legalizing it, would get rid of the “organized crime” violence, it would do nothing for crimes like an addict stealing from people or people becoming homeless or psyotic b/c of drugs. I’m sorry…but you do have to factor that into your plan.
It’s an interesting plan…and yeah…it would reduce organized drug crime…but it doesn’t do doodlysquat for the fact that the substances can and do turn people psyotic.
Yes it would. Legal drugs would mean cheaper drugs, unless the government is stupid enough to put a 1000% tax on the stuff. Cheaper drugs means it’s easier to afford an addiction. It may not be possible for everyone to afford it, but it would be a lot better if drugs were 20% of their current prices.
The government does not exactly have a great track record when it comes to placing taxes on goods with a low price elasticity of demand through addictive nature, combined with a significant percentage of the population who view purchase of said good as a moral failing.
True, and I don’t doubt they’d fuck it up like they fuck up everything else. I’m just imagining the best case scenario.
.
Yeah, it’s easier to afford an addiction but wouldn’t every available dollar still be going to the substance of choice? I have a friend who’s an addict, (very very addictive personailty) and she didn’t have money to pay her electricity bill, but she had money to indulge her various and sundry addictions. (binge eating on chedder potato chips, shopping, and 'script drugs)