2 things:
-
all of the ‘hard drug users used X first’ (where “X” is alternatively marijuana, alcohol, cigarettes etc), one needs to disply causality, not just proximity and ‘which was done first’. FOr example, we can say pretty certainly (except for modern scientific advancements) that vaginal sexual intercourse (tween male and female both who are capable of reproduction) causes pregnancy, however, despite the fact that hand holding probably occured prior to the sex act quite often, it doesn’t hold true that hand holding causes pregnancy. So can everybody kinda stop with the gateway stuff now please?
-
although the OP demands 'make ‘em legal’, the decision about ‘what’s in society’s best interest re: drugs’ does not simply have to remain ‘either/or’. I mentioned before that the current WOD as practised in the past several decades certainly hasn’t worked, and the main poster here against legalization apparently agreed with that. It does seem, however, that many of the proponents for legalization have passed right on by that posting and keep on pointing out the already agreed to position that ‘what we’ve been doing hasn’t really worked out like we’d hoped’.
There is a middle ground called decriminalization - where the final end users of the substance are not criminalized by their use, but some of the other issues of casual use not being a problem, addicts need treatment etc. can get the correct amount of attention.
For those focusing on the economic models, prices on computers et al are not really a good example to use regarding drug availability/costs. One generally doesn’t purchase computers daily etc. And, in the area of some drugs, there are other factors (such as building up a tolerance to the drug, addiction etc.) that make them a rather unique marketplace item. (for example, Sua I believe what our other poster was attempting to get at with their ‘25$ per week for how long’ statement was that idea of building a tolerance/craving - when I first started smoking, I smoked one cigarette a day, about 5 cents worth at the time, maybe. Of course when I quit, it was 2 packs a day ($2.50 a day at the time, more like $6 per day now).
I agree that many folks use drugs and don’t cause much of a problem for others (generally, tho’, I also believe the number is higher than those who would claim that their use isn’t affecting anyone else). So, no, not everyone who tries any of 'em will be addicted. I don’t know that there’s much accurate data about frequency of addiction.
Re: the comparison to Prohibition (that gets used every time). My view on that is that Prohibitions’ best lesson is that society goes a bit nutso when a sweeping change is attempted. Hence we’d best be pretty damn certain that the goal and effects of those sweeping changes are worth the pain of getting there before we make them. (ie the sweeping changes re: seperate but equal being bunk, the goal - equality/fairness for all of us - was of serious enough and grand enough value to warrent the risk of social upheaval while dealing with the change. It’s difficult for me to see the same level of value in ‘but I wanna get high’)
I guess my position is that the whole thing is a real mess now. And, with my views expressed immediately above, we need to be damned certain about what we’re doing before we take huge risks. So, therefore etc, I’d rather see a decriminalization policy start, and see what happens then.
(I also do NOT believe that the drug companies would be willing to see their potential for absurd profits go bye bye by reducing the costs of ‘gettin’ high drugs to a small level. I can hear them now “but we’ll use these exhorbitant profist we’re making off of cocaine to augment our tireless search in research & development department to find drugs to ummm, cure cancer, yep, and and AIDS, too, yea that’s the ticket” - Perhaps if you reflect on what the cigarette manufactures’ responses have been ‘our product kills people - must hide evidence.’ “our product is addictive - yippee! let’s see if we can tweak that up a notch or two” , 'our customers are dying - let’s market to the youth!, you’ll see my concern).
