So making drugs availible to the public is harm reduction?
Yes. Now you're getting it.
- The potency of drugs can be accurately portrayed, similar to alcohol percentage or proof, which would reduce the number of overdoses.
- The content can be regulated for quality and safety, so people won't be using drugs that have been floating in somebody's gas tank or hidden in laundry detergent for days or weeks, and the drugs won't be cut or mixed with dangerous chemicals by thugs on the street looking to stretch their product and make more money.
- Police will know where all drugs are sold, and thus can more effectively watch for and prevent sales to minors.
- Addicts can freely seek treatment without having to worry about facing possible criminal charges.
- Drug gangs and dealers would be out of business within a month.
- Police can refocus their resources and taxpayer dollars toward fighting actual crime.
- And so on.
I can bet you the sellers will undercut the selling price of legal fees at every turn. The government will probably end up taxing the drugs. There is no winning, same amount of tax payers money going down the drain, same old crap. The policies for the war on drugs need to be reformed. By legalizing, they have won the war.
This doesn't make any sense. How do you define "winning" the war on drugs? And how do you figure it's the same amount of tax dollars down the drain? I can't follow you here at all, sorry.
So if its that easy, how would a government regulate that? And your advocating cocaine be availible in liquor stores?
It works for alcohol, there's no reason to believe it won't work for any other drug.
Making cocaine illegal doesnt make sense to you?
No, not one bit of sense. The way to address the problem is to reduce demand through education, not incarceration.
Ah right, i remember this. Sorry i forgot about this, it was a long time ago. The results of relaxation of these laws showed they where having negative impacts on British society so they tightened them a few years later and upgraded the drug to class B. Imagine legalization?
Can you please link to a credible source that describes the reasons why they reversed that position?
Im using my common sense.
I know your "common sense" argument seems logical, but it has not played out in reality. That's because there are more variables here than what your logic accounts for. You're completely ignoring the effects of social attitudes and norms. You assume legalization automatically means glamorization, and that's simply not true.
Common sense dictates it will be used more, just like chocolate will be consumed more if it was being sold at cheaper rates. People will be more enticed to try it.
Now you're assuming people will never consider the health hazards and just smoke/snort/inject whatever is put in front of them. Honestly, would
you go shoot up heroin if you could buy some at the store? No? Then what makes you think everyone else will? It makes no sense.
In any case, you too cannot prove otherwise.
No, that's not how this works. It's
your claim that drug use would increase when legalized, so the burden of proof is on
you to prove this assertion or admit that it's nothing more than a myth unsupported by facts.
