Do you only restrain yourself from murdering, raping and robbing people because there are laws against it?
Isn’t it possible that if it was made legal, after a period of increased use, there may come a period where it becomes so mainstream, all the cool kids will be the ones not taking it, and like tobacco use, it will start to decrease?
There is a profound and obvious difference between eating an unhealthy cheeseburger and deliberately injecting yourself with a narcotic toxin. I also already indicated my objections were based on a moralist rather than economic perspective.
Please do not put words in my mouth, or subject my arguments to reductio ad absurdum.
Also, eat healthy. It’s good for you.
Well I refrain from seeing if my car will really go 150 MPH because it’s very against the law. And there are a few people I wouldn’t mind putting a little hurt on. So yes, I’d say laws help keep me in line.
The reason I wouldn’t drive at 150mph anywhere but on a racetrack, is because it is extremely fucking dangeous on a public highway, even if your name is Lewis Hamilton. I don’t need laws to make me act rationally and in a manner that isn’t deliberately harmful to society.
And those people who equate freedom with being able to do whatever you want no matter who it hurts are called anarchists, and are usually derided. And what plant are you talking about? Did you miss that this thread isn’t about marijuana?
While some drugs are innocuous or beneficial, some have no redeeming value, are addictive, and actually cause problems for those who use and those who are around them. The latter need to remain illegal.
Soda is not physically addictive, and the only harm is to those who consume it. That’s why Bloomberg’s law is offensive. There’s no legitimate state interest other than controlling the individual.
Well, if it can’t be bought freely, I’m not sure how it’s any different from every other form of meth in the status quo.
I’m no anarchist, but I disagree. I do err on the side of freedom. Call me crazy.
First, you might want to ask an actual, self-described anarchist or two what they think freedom means, because that doesn’t sound like what I’ve heard.
Second, there a number of plants, and fungi, that could be inserted into the discussion. Let’s say… coca, khat, and psilocybes. Heck, let’s say tobacco and grapes, too.
Who are you to judge how much ‘redeeming value’ any of these has to another person, to the point of criminalizing their personal, private consumption?
If a ‘problem’ is caused for someone else… address that. Prosecute the drunk driver, or what have you. But keep your laws off the people who have done nothing to you or anyone else. It’s their lives, not yours.
Mexico Updates Death Toll in Drug War to 47,515, but Critics Dispute the Data (since 2006, disputed as being too low)
Those numbers are shocking and horrifying to me. I think that Bayer could safely supply currently illegal drugs with fewer murders. Also, not everyone is addicted to Starbucks even though it is widely available.
Anyone who wants to use drugs can easily get them now. School kids can buy coke easier than they can buy beer. Innocent children are shot in gang wars and recruited in gangs to sell on the street. Users are afraid to seek help due to harsh penalties. Public officials are corrupted. Addicts commit more crime to pay for overpriced drugs. Criminal cartels have made our southern border a war zone. And all but run our southern neighbor. All the while becoming more rich and powerful. We have the highest incarceration rate of any first world nation. There is currently no regulation of the drug trade for any drugs. All because of prohibition. Decriminalization and legalization are the only way we will ever be able to control the flow of drugs, who can buy them, where they can be used and when they can be sold.