Having seen the results of the poll, how have you reexamined your position, if at all? Not saying the results qualify as proof of anything, I'm just curious.Originally Posted by Goshin
Yes.
No.
Having seen the results of the poll, how have you reexamined your position, if at all? Not saying the results qualify as proof of anything, I'm just curious.
I have leaned, albeit reluctantly, towards legalization of most drugs for a long time.
Things like Meth that just eat a person alive though... I still don't know about that. It seems very closely akin to legalizing assisted suicide, which is another one I have a hard time deciding on.
The only Pro-legal argument for Meth and similar killers that would make sense would be "make it easier for these people to remove themselves from the gene pool and from society as they seem intent on doing, and hopefully sooner rather than later." That's also a pretty harsh thing, even if perhaps realistic.
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."
This is understandable. I can empathize with the dilemma of letting people throw their lives away but from a moral perspective I don't see much justification for government interference in such a process, and from a practical perspective I think these laws serve to exacerbate drug abuse rather than alleviate it.
I say legalize drugs, use the money we save to protect good folks and the money we earn through taxes to fight poverty via infrastructural improvements; let the drug addicts go somewhere away from decent society and do what they would be doing anyway.The only Pro-legal argument for Meth and similar killers that would make sense would be "make it easier for these people to remove themselves from the gene pool and from society as they seem intent on doing, and hopefully sooner rather than later." That's also a pretty harsh thing, even if perhaps realistic.
Local governments could regulate or restrict the manufacture and distribution of hard drugs to their heart's intent. They could also fine tune public intoxication and possession laws to meet their needs.
Like you said, it's about being realistic.
That is the plus of being pro liberty, your addressing reality for what it is and not what we want it to be.
It is the most logical philosophy to have.
I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
—Adam Shepard
NO. And it shouldn't be legalized. Why legalize such an addicting drug that puts so many into poverty? To make more voters for the Democratic Party? Add more burden to welfare and medicaid? Legalizing drugs like this will only add the the amount of dependence people have on government, and will expand welfare.
There is no evidence that suggests legalizing any drug will lead to a demonstrable increase in usage.
How about the argument that it is not the government's job to protect people from their own bad decisions?
Anyway, I have no desire to try it.
I'm happy with my pot. No addiction and I enjoy the buzz.
"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit."
- The Tick
Another one of those "cliche cool" things to say.
Have you tried jumping off of a 500ft building with no cord and parachute once?
This one is about the worst drug on the market at least by reputation. And was why that one was chosen for this thread. Irregardless, I wouldn't use it if it were legal now. I wouldn't use pot either and i think that is nearly harmless with moderate use.
Crap. I lost my tooth yesterday.
Can I vote "yes" now?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote