i can't really argue with anything you're saying. i still think legalizing addictive drugs would be a bad idea, but i'm wondering about that now.
I see it as they age-old argument of freedom vs. security. Personally, I'd take freedom every time, but to each their own.
Fully agreed. Even growing cannabis for human consumption can be hazardous. Who knows what kind of shittty fertilizers some people have been smoking. Right, if you happen to be interested in chemistry, and synthesize LSD.. or -anything-... even cyanide, to make a law against putting something into your body as a consenting adult is a load of shit. The part that says I can serve jail time for wanting to put a substance in my body. Just look at what you're proposing. A substance is so dangerous that we will punish you for putting it into your body. We have a set of funds allocated to deal with the problem of using these substances, and we have chosen to spend those funds on arresting you, on holding you to trial, and on sustaining you in our prisons. You seem to have missed how barbaric and un-American what you're suggesting is. Personally, I don't think it should be legal to make a business around an addictive substance, that's a sort of cheap trick anyone can figure out(I hear the cig companies are making a killing, literally). You don't have customers at that point, you have victims. You're a vampire. That, indeed, should be illegal. Punishing the adult individual however, for putting a dangerous substance into their body is repulsive. You send addicts to rehab and help them, you don't put them in prison. And if they're not an addict, you simply don't have a say in their business.
if all drugs were legal then they would all be regulated and therefore causing waaayyyy less OD's...and it would be a better (and more fun lol) world
i couldn't agree with this more. we don't need big brother taking care of us. allow us to be free, independent people as we were trying to be when we first came to the US.
it is security vs. freedom. I believe in personal freedom more than most people (think most drugs should be legalized, get rid of many taxes, etc), but i am also a realist and legalizing crystal meth, heroin and crack are going to have more negative effects than positive ones. I realize that most people aren't going to try any hard drugs as soon as they become legal, i just don't see how the number of addicts/users would go down as an effect of legalization. It just makes it easier for addicts to get there drug of choice so there is no where for the number of users to go but up. KStrig you seem really strict in your beliefs and i no im not going to change your mind but, i think we should have as much freedom as possible to a realistic extent. It seems your opinion is of off principle, but the truth is that the government does not trust it's citizens to take drugs responsibly and would cause more harm to society than good so it should be legalized in the gov'ts opinion. JW if there was an anarchist state (oxymoron) of some sort would there be any rules at all, like the basic do not kill, do not steal kind of things or could you just go out and kill someone if you had the urge to do so?
For starters, legalization would trade drugs being sold on the street by a dealer for drugs being sold in a pharmacy preferably by a pharmacist. They actually have to buy them from someone who knows how harmful they are. The pharmacist can easily warn them. I'm not saying this is going to stop anyone, but legalization turns a law enforcement issue into a medical issue and that's a huge plus. Again, if they were legal, education would be way more widespread on which drugs were good and which weren't. People could learn the effects from a label on the container. I have to admit, the drugs would definitely be easier to get, but that doesn't make them more harmful. If anything the drugs will be safer because you know exactly what you're getting. It's K-Stig and I am pretty strict in my beliefs. I think we should have as much individual freedom as possible. Anarchists are for no government. In an anarchist society, I guess there could be basic rules like don't kill and don't steal, but they wouldn't be necessary. I think most people are smart enough to know what's right and what's wrong. They don't need laws to govern them. Anarchists place all their faith in the individual. Communists, on the opposite side of spectrum, place all their faith in the collective. EDIT: BTW, law enforcement would not disappear, it would just turn into private security companies. Actually, all the services the government provides can be done in the private sector. Security would become the job of private companies rather than the state.
the education bit is a good point but what about advertisement? could meth be freely advertised were ever wanted? and about the anarchy topic, private security companies? so like many different groups of secret servicemen or something similiar? what if someone killed a hobo or something like that who would supply justice?
If I had it my way, yes. But who would want to advertise meth? Do you think that'd be good for business? Yea, private security companies. They exist now. They're basically private police. As for your murdered hobo scenario, a local security agency could take the case if they wanted. It would probably be good for business and the area in general to get the murderer off the street if they have a lot of clients in the area. It also looks good on the company to find the culprit even though the hobo wasn't paying them. I'm not saying that every murdered hobo case is going to get solved, but they sure as hell don't all get solved now-a-days.
in an anarchist society i imagine this scenario: A hand full of different rich groups each with there own group of police men assassinating whoever(in secret for public image) and making money whatever way they can, there is noone to regulate it who's stopping them? it would be like survival of the fittest except instead of fitness being the survival factor who ever has the biggest army (police group) would control. What i guess i'm saying is i don't trust the common man to do what is morally right. In the society we will live in power corrupts. This is the truth that we see with many many politicians and diffferent significantly wealthy people. Also, who would print money and how would land ownership work?
Yo, I'm going to bed so this is going to be my last post for tonight. That definitely is the main problem with anarchism. In a society where no one has power over anyone else, people will always strive to get it. Anarchy relies on the morality of the people. As for land ownership, personally, I'd like their still be to private property rights. And as for currency, different currencies would compete and they'd have different values and so forth. In my anarchy, we'd have true free-market capitalism.
then i'm going to have to say anarchy is unrealistic. In an ideal society anarchy would work because there would be no need for a goverment if everyone acted as they should. We know this not to be true. In a way beleiveing in this is the same as the prohibitionists because you look at ideally what it should be like. Prohibitionists says ideally people don't use drugs for recreational purposes. i agree but, they do, laws don't help that fact. That is why prohibition doesn't work and will never work. Anarchy & Communism both work in theory but realistically don't work on a large scale. My beliefs: Gives us as many rights as possible within reason. Legalize all soft drugs, it doesn't do much of an impact on society. And never stop tokin'
Laws are suppose to be made to protect the people, so saying that legalization of weed isn't fair if all drugs don't become legal is ignorant. Violence has always existed and always will, everyone gets mad and fighting can/will happen @ some moment of time. For example if a school kid gets picked on, and beaten up, and steroids were legal, what stops that kid from getting steroids, working out and becoming more jacked up, then beating the living hell to take vengeance? and that will just lead to more and more fights and more and more people using steroids. Again as cigarettes and alcohol can kill, no one can die from marijuana, that is the main injustice. Think about the addictive nature of cigarettes, people can do things at certain times (e.g. depression, boredom, etc) but if they become addicted that sort of impairs them from stopping in the future. If more addictive drugs were legal the same exact thing would happen, some may try it out of curiosity and become hooked for life.
I wouldn't consider it completely legal, but you can get a prescription from a doctor for Desoxyn which is meth. Personally, I'd like to do away with the entire prescription system. If you want a drug/medicine, you go buy it. You shouldn't need a doctor to say you need the drugs. All that matters is that you want them.
The only drugs, of any sort, I'd place any restrictions on are some "antibiotics of last resort" because incorrect use or overuse of those would cause more antibiotic resistant bacteria to develop, spread through the populace, and potentially kill everyone. Everything else, over the counter with an information sheet. That's me, there are equally valid arguments for free availablity of everything.
This. By making drugs illegal they become interesting. By re-legalizing them they become interesting and freely available. I am a fan, however, of the idea to make hard drugs available per prescription for addicts who won't quit; it's better they get uncut stuff dosed and perhaps injected by professionals than rat poison from the street injected with a needle found in a public toilet at the train station. Drugs like mushrooms, lsd, mdma etc. should be legalized as they cause no real physical harm and are only lethal after insane doses. I do think drugs should be legal, but legalizing I'm against unless it could be a slow progress so it wouldn't get that exciting all at once. I'm all in for decriminalization though..