Drug Legalization

But what we can do is to stop making criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens, simply because they enhoy smoking a joint every now and then.

How odd that you can drink yourself stupid and nobody bats an eye, but the first time somebody breaks out the herb, all Hell breaks loose.

We can also greatly reduce crime by taking the drug dealers out of the equation.

First of all, you're assuming that everyone who takes recreational drugs has a "problem".

You're also assuming that it's the government's job to regulate what we put into our bodies. By your logic, the government should shut down all McDonald's and put the sixteen year olds who work there, as well as all who eat there, behind bars.

I pray that we see the day when people are treated like adults and allowed to decide for themselves.

 

Joseph, c'mon. Really, you know very well that we're not advocating anarchy.

We just want the government to treat us like adults, capable of making our own decisions.

 

I cant speak for you Bill, but I am very free. I just choose not to do stupid things like drugs or support anyone thinking the legalization of drugs is the answer. Thanks for asking. </font>[/QUOTE]The key word is "choose", as in "I just choose not to do stupid things..."

That's fine that you've chosen not to do drugs, but isn't it a little hypocritical of you to say that you can make the choice, but you would not allow someone else to make their own choice?

 

Mike McK,

How do you propose to take drug dealers out of the question? Liquor has been legal for many years now, and bootleggers still thrive. There are still people who make and sell moonshine at a fantastic profit. Why do you think that drug dealers would simply go out of business because we legalize drugs. Do you attribute some altruistic motive to them? Do you really believe they are selling drugs for the good of mankind?

People do bat an eye when someone drinks himself stupid. There are many laws on the books to punish public drunkeness, drunk driving, driving under the influence, buying alcohol for minors, etc. To make that sort of statement is ridiculous. If no one bats an eye, why do you suppose that liquor cannot be advertised on TV, etc?

I make no assumptions about "recreational" use of drugs. That is your term, as I did not use it. You will admit that there are thousands, if not millions of people who do have a problem because of drugs, won't you? Every drug addict had to start with that first use of a drug, whether it was a "recreational" snort of cocaine or as you put it the "recreational" act that "breaks out the herb".

You can decide for your self now., You can decide to smoke dope, snort cocaine, "break out the herb", mainline drugs, ad nauseum. Just like you can decide to rape, murder and steal. Just be ready to pay the penalty. Being of an adult age does not entitle one to destroy himself nor contribute to the destruction of another person who may not be able to keep from becoming an addict after a "recreational" use of drugs.

 

"I just choose not to do stupid things like drugs or support anyone thinking the legalization of drugs is the answer."

Which stupid things do you do? Why should your stupid things be legal?

 

Frying one's brain didn't matter to the public until two things happened. First, cars became cheap. If a guy got drunk and fell off his horse the horse usually stopped.

Second, govt welfare became universal.

THE obvious solution is to give people a location to fry their brains apart from the rest of us. I suggest establishing a red light district state. I suggest Nevada because every other vice is already legal there and it is relatively isolated. No one is required to go to Nevada except the military and truck drivers.

 

The only thing 'stupid' that I tend to do is entertain the babbling of theorists who believe that if given the opportunity, the whole world would just clean itself up! All the world needs is a hug and a free ice cream cone. Yep. Oh and a couple hits of meth. Right.

At least it is humorous at times to see the struggle you have attempting to make reasonable arguements for wading knee deep into sin.

We do allow you to make your own choices. Follow the law (meaning act in a civilized manner) or go to jail. Could it be more idiot proof?

Death is an alternative, brought on only by the faulty reasoning that drugs are just a recreational thing. Go visit an emergency room on a weekend night and see for yourself.

Stay away from drugs and just say no. It works wonders for your soul!

 

Oh yeah, Seeking is correct. I do bat more than an eye when people drink themselves stupid. Ive had over 30 arrests for various things that all have to do with drinking.

 

Say again? Had what?

 

By putting sound economic priciples to work and taking away their market.

Because by making drugs legal, there would be no profit. The profit would not be great enough to be worth the cost/personal risk.

No, to assume that anytime someone drinks, they're doing one of these things is breaking the law is ridiculous.

We're not talking about breaking the law while drinking, we're talking about drinking.

Actually, they can. They just don't.

Both Royal Crown and Jack Daniels have advertised on TV.

I do. My brother is one of them.

You're confusing abuse with addiction.

First of all, I do choose not to take drugs for a variety of reasons but it's not really a free choice because I'm coerced under threat of imprisonment not to take drugs.

Absolutely, it does.

One of the hallmarks of Western civilization and, certainly, the principle our country was founded on is to determine our own destiny and to make our own choices.

 

"Things that have to do with drinking" is not the same as drinking.

 

You all confuse protecting ourselves from stupid people with outlawing sinning.

 

I would be fully supportive of any law outlawing stupid people.

 

sure would cut down on BB posts, wouldn't it?

 

Mike,

How do you take away a drug dealer's market by making his product legal? Just because it's legal doesn't mean it won't be sold or should be sold.

Because by making drugs legal, there would be no profit. The profit would not be great enough to be worth the cost/personal risk.

Why do you suppose that there would be no profit? What is the cost or personal risk to dealers if the product is legal? If you are talking about the users, why do you suppose that those who are presently drawn to drugs will wake up when it is legal and decide there is too much risk of personal harm?

First of all, I do choose not to take drugs for a variety of reasons but it's not really a free choice because I'm coerced under threat of imprisonment not to take drugs.

Do the laws against it deter you in any way? If not, then as far as you're concerned, whether it is a free choice is irrelevant because you would have made the choice anyway.

 

From the Right for Prez.

 

Are you familiar with the principle of scarcity? When the availability of a good or service increases, the profit decreases.

Most likely the same personal risk as there is now for people who sell alcohol and tobacco illegally.

I don't. People who take drugs know the risks and, obviously, they're willing to accept those risks.

Yes. I answered this in my last post.

But it's not irrelevant. Coercion is not a choice.

 

Mike,

Are you familiar with the principle of scarcity? When the availability of a good or service increases, the profit decreases.

Good point, Mike, but if you study econ, you know that that will reach some sort of equilibrium. As the profit decreases, some producers/dealers will be driven from the market, having a negative impact on supply. There is also the distinct possibility that once the legal stigma is removed that those on the margin who might have tried such drugs but for the illegality will be lured into the demand side of that market.

Re your comment

you had earlier said that

So I'm not clear whose risk you're talking about.

People who take drugs know the risks and, obviously, they're willing to accept those risks.

Again, I'm not clear on whose risk/cost you were alluding to earlier. The seller? The buyer?

To my question whether the laws deter you, you answered yes. If that is the case, then the laws do work to keep down demand from those who, as I said above, might otherwise be drawn to them. Obviously coercion is not a choice. The question is whether society should practice that coercion against the ready availability of a product it finds objectionable, in this case, drugs.

 

SN,

From the Right for Prez.



Of what?

 

[/qb]

Any legalization would come with some sort of regulation, in much the same way as alcohol and tobacco are regulated.

Maybe, but probably not. Most people aren't swayed by the legal consequences, but by the social stigma and by the health risks involved.

And if they do decide to take drugs, as much as I would disagree with their decision, it would ultimately be their decision.

The dealer.

The buyer.

Even if that were true, the purpose of government is not to pass laws to protect people from making their own decisions.

So, why are people allowed to make these decisions when it comes to alcohol, tobacco and fatty foods, but not recreational drugs?

Where in the Constitution are we told that the government has this authority?