http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-great-debate-that-no-ones-talking-about-20111203-1ocag.html
So, Drug Legalization -
Ye or
Nay? Illegal drugs that is - I think you all know the ones I'm talking about. This includes other stuff like injection rooms etc
I have never tried drugs, and have no intention of doing so. I hate that so many people lose themselves to such toxic substances, destroying their lives and bodies, not to mention the impact it has on all the people around them. I understand the rationale behind drug legalization, that consumption is inevitable and that if there is a demand someone will supply it, better the government than criminals.
However, in my opinion this simply makes the government the criminals, as they are actively supporting life destroying habits. It is bad enough that people choose to take up such habits, but to give them a nod of approval in the sight of the law is more than I can stomach. In reference to the article above, I am seriously concerned that someone would push such a view. When someone
enjoys something which poses such serious consequences both mentally and physically I become increasingly worried about the state of our society.
Help them overcome it? Absolutely. Encourage them to continue it? No.[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]
Your entire argument is pretty flawed
First of all, not every single drug user is an addict that rapes kids whilst high on PCP and crystal meth. It's simply not true. Now I have no basis for this, (yeah, discontinue reading from here on until my next paragraph) but I'd posit that most users of recreational drugs are exactly that. Recreational users. They aren't addicted, they aren't dependent upon it and they aren't (too) destructive to themselves, their loved ones or society at large.
Another thing that you said is that the government should supply it, which is not what users here would support. I would much rather a private enterprise that will be held accountable for its product and its profit and, equally as important, its losses. A private company working in self interest with the profit motive will provide superior narcotics at cheaper prices. You'll probably not have any of the fucking horseshit that goes into pills and junk as well. Of course they will definitely have to follow some pretty stringent guidelines and practices. Like not putting shards of glass in their products.
You're also saying that if something is now legal, there will be a huge flock of demand for it. That's not entirely true. Usually there is no real change in the demand because quite simply the demand is already being fulfilled. People who were using it before legalisation are merely going to continue to do so but the state won't put them in rape cages with violent criminals for it anymore. You might see a small spike in sales, especially since they can actually be recorded now a lot more accurately, but this may be due to current users increasing their short term demand since the price will have dropped so dramatically.
Decriminalisation at the very least is not a thumbs up from the state to go ahead and get high every 30 minutes and then fuck your neighbour's dog. That's not how society works. Society works in a social way (derp), not a coercive way. People won't do drugs because it affects their health, the same way people don't smoke and drink or have unprotected sex with strangers. They will also not do it because they think it is something that is 'beneath' them (or something along those lines) and through the processes of social interaction, people can more or less ween their communities off of drug use if users are ostracised for their actions. Now if there is a choice between merely excluding someone from social gatherings or invading their house, kidnapping them at gunpoint, throwing them into a cage with violent men/women for whatever length of incredulous time, I would choose the former.
It sounds abhorrent doesn't it? Government control over what you do? Restriction of freedom of speech and liberty!!! How dare they!
Haven't you heard of the alcohol limit? Drink a certain amount, and you can't drive. I'd call that a government telling its people what to consume...
Hasn't it occurred to you that people might stop you from doing stupid things because they might actually care about the consequences, and about you?
Your parents might care where you go out and what's consumed there because they don't want a policeman coming to their door in the dead of night to tell them you're not going to be coming back. Your friends might care if you don't eat and refuse all food in search of some ideal of "beauty" because you're too fat. Are they just going to stand by and let you?
These things can spell life or death for people.
I was going to include this part in the first response, but I think it's more fitting here. It's interesting that you harp on and moan about "the consequences" and "hurting people". You know the drug war in America has caused about 36,000 deaths right? You know criminalisation of substances gives root to black markets that enforce their trades with horrendous violence, widespread corruption, extortion, rape and murder right? That's not even including what the state does to people (the same thing). You don't seem to realise that the consequences of legalisation are that, yes substances are more readily available for immediate consumption for people, but that it relinquishes the cartel's vice-grip on force, innocent civilians and allows violence to diminish on a wides scale. It might take a generation to see these monsters die off, but it will be worth the wait. Where would any drug lord who keeps his business in check with widespread violence get his power from if he can't sell his products at a marketable price? Free enterprise would undercut the cartels and we would see freer societies in South American nations because the cartels would lose their footholds in government, because they no longer have the funds for it. Without money, they have no power and without power, we have no violence.
So, as you can see, these things can spell life or death for people.
Alcohol has a terrible long and short term effect on lots of people and it's legal. Why shouldn't all the other drugs be?
That's a really fallacious argument that doesn't mean anything.
"yo so like alcohol has a higher bodycount than anthrax, why can't I shoot that up at central station fuck fascism"
So, lets say your best friend started slitting their wrists, and they won't listen to anything you, or anyone else says. You simply going to let them do that?
I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't.
What people do, regardless of whether like it or not, has consequences beyond themselves. The individual is not the be and end all, as appealing and gratifying as it may sound. A persons actions will have repercussions on those around them. Imagine if you had a child, and they committed suicide. I know someone who has had that happen. The agony this person has had to go through is simply impossible to put into words.
The analogies you're putting forth aren't the same to what you're supposed to be arguing. You're arguing whether the state should coerce the citizenry into following the majority rule on substance use. This is very different to them inflicting very serious, immediate harm on themselves. Before you say "rah rah rah drugs are bad mmkay", someone smoking a joint of marijuana isn't going to die from it, while someone who is opening their veins at the wrist with bladed instruments is very likely to. Like I said before, individuals, in their own self interest, will use social interaction and constructs to keep drug use down. I bet that if you ever have children, you will tell them that all drugs are bad and you should stay away from them (social interaction). That's not the same as putting a gun to their head every step they take throughout their life warning them off it (coercion).
A child committing suicide is not really the same situation dude and it's a pretty poor attempt to draw a connection.
