We've already legalized drugs like this. If you drink one gallon of grain alchohol you will die, everytime.
Or eat a handful of Tylenol. OTC pain pills kill twice as many people per year than ecstasy.
Or eat a handful of Tylenol. OTC pain pills kill twice as many people per year than ecstasy.
Because ecstasy is illegal and thus harder to come by?
1. There is no known correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use. People who assume that the laws are keeping drug use to a minimum, and/or that drug use would skyrocket out of control if legalized, cannot support this myth.
2. Prohibition causes more problems than it solves. No drug has ever been made less harmful as a result of prohibition. Every drug in existence is even more harmful and dangerous under prohibition, both to the user and to society. Many of the problems associated with drug use are caused by prohibition, and many others are made worse by prohibition.
That could be argued but the fact that we allow a drug that kills 500-1000 people per year to be sold in bathroom coin dispensers but we give people felonies for possessing a drug that kills 50-80 people per year, mostly for prohibition related causes; impurities, dehydration because raves charge for water, overheating because raves are done in clandestine locations without A/C etc.
Also ecstasy is not hard to come by, any public HS student can get E by the end of the school day without leaving campus.
I didn't say E was hard to come by, I said it was harder to come by, and E's illegal status gives it a stigma which likely repels more people than, say, an espresso would.
The laws don't work, when I was in High school I was openly propositioned to buy weed, shrooms, ecstasy and prescription narcotics. I was anti-drug/pro-drug war at this point in my life but I started to realize how much of an utter failure the policy was if I could get my hands on just about any drug of my choosing by the end of a school day, without even leaving campus.
Then an undercover narq came to my school as an enrolled student. The sting netted 6 students over the time span of a semester and a half.
The sting was described by the school and local police as a great success, the campus is now drug free! No, you just netted 6 people who were dumb enough to sell to a 30 year old "student". I realized that the Drug War is all about budgets and PR and not actually about public safety, big surprise there.
And I still went about my day at school propositioned just as much as usual, the remaining years of HS.
Because ecstasy is illegal and thus harder to come by?
I can guarantee that this is the rule and not the exception for every public school. I have even heard of private schools that could not escape it. The drug war is a false sense of security when in reality anyone with a few bills can purchase drugs regardless of their age.
It's only marginally harder to come by. I doubt that a few degrees of separation would account for such a large disparity. Either way, we are both speculating.
I would have and would do a lot more drugs if they weren't illegal.
However, in my line of work I'd be fired. Same goes for the the hundreds of thousands in this country in my line of work: government employee and government contractor.
The burden of proof is on people who think that drug laws actually do have an effect on the rate of drug use. The statement I made that "there is no known correlation" cannot be proven, it can only be disproven. But I can prove that the World Health Organization and the CATO Institute both agree with me that there is no known correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use. Here you go:Oh I get it, you're waiting for someone to ask you for links....uh huh....
World Health Organization said:“The U.S., which has been driving much of the world’s drug research and drug policy agenda, stands out with higher levels of use of alcohol, cocaine, and cannabis, despite punitive illegal drug policies. … The Netherlands, with a less criminally punitive approach to cannabis use than the US, has experienced lower levels of use, particularly among younger adults. Clearly, by itself, a punitive policy towards possession and use accounts for limited variation in nation level rates of illegal drug use.”
The World Health Organization Documents Failure of U.S. Drug Policies
When people say there should be harsh penalties for drug use, or that we can't legalize drugs because everyone will start using them, it's based on the false assumption that drug laws actually have an effect on the rate of drug use. They need to prove this association or stop assuming it exists.CATO Institute said:"Some supporters of drug prohibition claim that its benefits are undeniable and self-evident. Their main assumption is that without prohibition drug use would skyrocket, with disastrous results. But there is little evidence for this commonly held belief. In fact, in the few cases where empirical evidence does exist it lends little support to the prediction of soaring drug use. For example, in two places in the Western world where use of small amounts of marijuana is legal--the Netherlands and Alaska--the rate of marijuana consumption is arguably lower than in the continental United States, where marijuana is banned. In 1982, 6.3 percent of American high school seniors smoked marijuana daily, but only 4 percent did so in Alaska. In 1985, 5.5 percent of American high school seniors used marijuana daily, but in the Netherlands the rate was only 0.5 percent.[6] These are hardly controlled comparisons--no such comparisons exist--but the numbers that are available do not bear out the drastic scenario portrayed by supporters of continued prohibition."
Thinking about Drug Legalization | James Ostrowski | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis
Again, anti-prostitution law has NOTHING to do with religion. Not in any way, shape or form.
Anti-prostitution law has to do with preventing sex-slave trafficking and the abuse of women through prostitution.
For those who are pro-drug legalization:
Let's say there is a drug that has a 100% fatality rate. If you take it, you get temendously high, after which you always die. Obviously, since all the users are dead its use cannot be banned. My question is, would you support the legalization of the sale of this drug?
Don't mean to hijack the thread, just curious.
My point is that the government (We the people) should have no standing in trying to influence an individual's moral behavior through legal prohibition of things. Morality is the province of the church &Y family...not government. Aside from anything else, enforcing such "Prohibitions" are doomed to failure.
If a woman chooses to ruin her life by becoming a prostitute, drug addict or drunk, that is HER decision to make.
The state should have no more interest in that decision than if she decides to overeat.
As long as she doesn't interfere with MY rights, it's none of my business.
As far as this is concerned: :"Anti-prostitution law has to do with preventing sex-slave trafficking and the abuse of women through prostitution.".......I would argue that the very act of making prostitution illegal creates the atmosphere for sex-slave trafficking in the first place.
Anti-prostitution law has nothing to do with subjective morality either.
When people say there should be harsh penalties for drug use, or that we can't legalize drugs because everyone will start using them, it's based on the false assumption that drug laws actually have an effect on the rate of drug use. They need to prove this association or stop assuming it exists.
Come again?
I'll need a moment to let the coffee kick in. Hey, a man's body needs a little time to "recharge"
I'll need a moment to let the coffee kick in. Hey, a man's body needs a little time to "recharge"
As a former SA Counselor, and a clean and sober American...I say legalize and regulate everything. It won't increase or decrease usage and abuse, but it will reduce the harmfull effects of "bad" dope and poison meth. Along with reducing our dependance on foreign drugs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?