Xzi said:
That's their choice, though. Unless you're a complete moron, you know that hard drugs will destroy your life, so the majority of us stay away from them. For the people who don't care if their life goes down the shitter, they should have the personal freedom to take them, so long as it isn't negatively affecting anyone else. And as for the aforementioned morons who take them not knowing any better, well that's Darwinism at its finest for you.
You say "unless you're a complete moron", but from what I've heard, there are a great many number of clever and productive people out there who've at least tried, if not are addicted, to these kinds of drugs much in the same was as alcohol and cigarettes.
People say the same kind of things regards alcohol and cigarettes-- "it's their fault if they get liver problems, throat problems, etc". And yet, on these forums we've established that we (and our governments) cannot just stand back and watch a wide number and variety of people lose their lives so painfully due to drugs, either from a moral standpoint or from an economical one.
I'd also like to point out that people take drugs for different reasons. Some because of peer preassure, others because they're suffering from depression due to the loss of a loved one, others out of sheer curiosity. Recently here on the news (UK) the government announced that a ridiculously high number of school kids by the age of 15 had at least once tried cocaine (something like 10-15% I think). I wouldn't call them morons, just too young to rationalise. I mean, how many of use tried a cigarette by that age? If my 12 year-old sister had taken coke, I wouldn't call her a moron. I know she's an intelligent girl, and whatever her reason for doing so, it wouldn't be because she's brainless. And I certainly wouldn't leave her to get addicted and I'm sure you wouldn't want members of your family to either?
6 months ago I would've agreed with your comment, but people on these forums have pointed out that prevention is better than cure, legalising coke and heroine is a bad idea from the start.
Furburt said:
Well, at least they'd be under the auspices of the government, it would make it easier for them to get help.
Refer to this
argument I posted earlier in the thread for my solution.
Well at least
How would it make it easier to get help? Are people with coke and heroine problems delayed/ barred from getting help right now (that's not asked in a patronising way, I'm asking genuinely because I don't know)?
Has making cigarettes legal made less people addicted and more able to quit smoking, and easier? I guess there's no way of saying as it's always been legal, but I'm guessing 'no'. It's the other way round. No matter how much care you have to prevent smoking, there's no denying that once you're addicted, it's not as simple as waking up one day and saying "that's it, I'm not touching it again, and it'll be as easy as clicking my fingers". It's an ADDICTION. I think people use the word so losely now they tend to overlook the severety of it. Supposing you legallised smack, and you had all the doctors in the world to overlook the patients, that won't make helping them overcome addiction any easier for them.
Furthermore, even if doctors did limit the amount of coke and heroine you took, for starters people who want more would start arguing "it is my god given right to take as much as I want, it shouldn't be up to the government to dictate how much I can and can't have" and before you know it BAM! the government has had to change the law to allow people to take as much as they want due to freedom of speech, political correctness or something like that. That's exactly what would happen if you restrained the number of alcohol and cigarettes people have.
When you set up a system such as that, there will always be people out there wanting to break the barriers down in the [often miss-used and miss-understood] name of democracy and freedom.
Furburt said:
Also, it would be cheaper than street prices to drive criminals out of business, because frankly, the government could charge 10 cent an ounce for it and still make a profit.
OR if people still want more than their doctors proscription, they'll resort to buying from the illegal trade again, and so there goes an end to your "it'll put an end to the illegal drugs trade".
I'll say it again, prevention is better than cure.