Yeah, I'm sorry for the incoherence in my previous post, I was agitated (not by you) and sort of in a hurry and I have some difficulty dividing into sentences and paragraphs. I'll pay more attention to make a decent post this time.teh_pwning_dude said:You're on a roll, mate. Sentences that don't make sense, putting words in my mouth, bringing up points that have never been mentioned... you're having a field day.
Legalisation of a substance means that the government has made a concious effort to say that consumption of said substance is fine. Stop bringing up cigs because they have ALWAYS been legal, I can't tell whether you're ignoring everything I say on purpose or if you just don't want to hear it. The biggest consequence of legalisation is the attitude of the next generation, not this one, Christ, you'd think I'm proposing the change the nature of reality or something. Bizarre absolutes are awesome!
What's this about people doing something because it's bad for them? Oh I see, you put it in quotes so it seems like I said it... too bad it never happened. What are you on about, really?
And you did not just say law doesn't dictate how people see things. I mean, you've got to be kidding me. Do you really believe that?
I'm rereading your post again and again and it just doesn't make sense. Please try to make your sentances more coherant or I'll find it difficult to discuss with you. I just don't understand what you're saying.
You see, while I sort of understand your point about the government endorsing illegal drugs when they are legalised, it's a bit more complex than that. If they decided to just legalise everything and be done with it, yes this could give indeed the impression that the government approves of drug use, but like the anti-drug programs they have today, they could educate and warn the populace of the dangers.
I don't know why I can't include cigarettes because they illustrate this very clearly: as you said cigarettes have always been legal, but through new scientific findings and government education about the risk, people know how harmfull it is to smoke. This does not stop everyone from smoking, but it does discourage many people even when smoking tobacco is legal.
This graph for example illustrates that from 1965 trough 1998, the percentage of people who quit smoking rised significantly, even amount youth, and this was solely due to health-risk and government and society discouraging smoking, not because of prohibiting it.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=hssurggen&part=A6393&rendertype=figure&id=A11884
On the other hand, the illegal nature of drugs clearly does not stop people from using them (evidenced by the netherlands as pointed out by many people here), but I am convinced that the majority of people who do not use illegal drugs do so because of the known healthrisks, and whether drugs are illegal or not, these healthrisks are a constant.
So if the government stated for example, when legalising these substances:
"The illegal nature of these drugs have not helped our society, because people use them anyway. So by making them legal, putting a quota the amount a user can buy and educating our younger generations we hope to regain some control. This does not mean we condone drug use but as people use these substances anyway, it's in their best interest to create a safer environment etc"
Now, there might be a slight increase in use, but I think this will be more than offset by the positive aspects that legalisation has. Because again, the amount of people that use a substance is not a problem, it's the way they use it.
About my statement that the law doesn't dictate how people view things: yes, that was an oversimplification. The law certainly has a role but I believe that it's minor and that individual and societal morality plays a bigger role than the law. Now these are obviously linked, but the law will change according to how the people feel the law should be, rather than that people's mentality changes because of the law. Murder and stealing are for example things that people frown upon, not because of the law, but because the morality in our culture condems this as bad. Promiscuity on the other hand(especialy for women) is not against the law, but it certainly is frowned upon by many people. And illegaly downloading music and movies is done by many people who would otherwise not steal but feel that they can download what they want. The people that do not illegaly download don't do this, because they see this as theft.
Also, I reread my previous post and I realize I must have come of as aggressive/condesending. That was not my intention.