quote: What is it about pot that is so terribly more dangerous than alcohol? Absolutely nothing, its not nearly as damaging....it all relates to william randolph hearst wanting to eradicate hemp from the paper industry. Marijuana was demonized in the process.
all i know is, while i agree with the legalisation of drugs from a civil liberties standpoint, i would pretty much be totally incapable of fighting the urge to go buy something i didn't need.
From the first post: "There were no black-market drug dealers preying on school children. There were no gang wars over drug profits, because there were no drug gangs. After all, who would buy dangerous drugs from a gangster at outrageous prices when he could buy safe drugs made by a reputable drug company at modest prices?" This is what I've been trying to tell everyone!!! It would actually make the world safer! This is also why I support legalising prostitution. You're much less likely to run into a prostitute on the street if they have a legitimate office to go to, ya know? Same thing with drug dealers. Hell if they had age restrictions you could virtually not worry about your kids getting any drugs at all. Now? Your child can go right up the street and get it easily. I'm just amazed at what the general public will swalow...'oh the governemt said it's bad and this is what will fix everything so it must be true' *drool*
"i would pretty much be totally incapable of fighting the urge to go buy something i didn't need." Hell, I'm like that now....LOL, unless we just don't have any money
yeah. smoking was SO HARD TO QUIT, because it's so easy to get cigarettes. alcohol, too. man, i just dunno. it's so stupid to have alcohol and tobacco legal, but not other drugs. what a waste of funds.
I wish Bush would listen to some fellow conservatives on this matter: http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200505100808.asp
I don't think, if you look, heroin or cocaine is really "any harder to get" than alcohol or tobacco or any other OTC availabe drug. Legalizing drugs will solve problems. Yes, there will still be addicts, but not more than there are now. From stats from decrim states like Oregon, decriming pot actually decreases use, it is beleived that it is no longer a rebelious thing to do. No, that would be as bad (or worse) than having drugs illegal.
The Netherlands and areas in Australia that have decriminalized pot have not seen any sort of rise in use, and less children smoke there then here in the US One major supporting reason for decriminalizing would be to end the "drug war" our gov't wastes billions of our own tax dollars every year and with no positive effect. It is a waste.
I completely agree with you guys. Furthermore, it's estimated that fully one-half of violent crimes committed in the United States are drug-related. Nearly all of those could be eliminated if drugs were legal. If drugs were legal, they could be sold by legitimate businesses so there wouldn't be any risk of anyone ripping anyone off (and getting killed). If drugs were legal, the outrageous prices would drop to a more reasonable level, meaning that addicts wouldn't have to steal from friends, family, or strangers to finance their habit. If drugs were legal, people would be more willing to seek help for their problem because they wouldn't be treated like a criminal. If drugs were legal, it would reduce the congestion and costs in our justice system. There are lots of reasons drugs should be legalized. There are NO reasons for drugs to be illegal that are more in-depth than "Drugs are bad, mmmkay."
That's mostly because of the enormous taxes on marijuana, not because of the actual cost of the product. With harder drugs, which are much more price-inflated than marijuana, it'd be almost impossible for the price to rise following legalization even if you instituted a 100% sales tax.
As I said earlier, I'd want to see pot legalized for a few years to assess the results before legalizing harder drugs.