English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I can understand cracking down on dug dealers. But why are
they kicking people out of their homes for stuggling with addictions?
How does this help their addiction?
How does this cut down on homelessness?
How does it prevent crime?
How does it ease the back-logged court system?
How does it cut down on prison overcrowding?
How does it ease the tax burden that pays for it all?

Anthony Silva
Great Legislator

2006-10-09 02:04:49 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

5 answers

Obviously it is indeed nothing morte than the legislation of morality. About 50% of the people in our prisons are non violent drug offenders,and yet history has shown time and time again that no amount of punishment stops lifestyle crimes such as drug use. After all remember how amazingly well prohibition worked. It is seen time after time that alot of the laws written to control peoples lives in ways such as this not only cause an extra burden on the society,they also never work,and in many cases make problem worse. That's why for example so many European countries legalized prostitution for example,it was simpler to control the trade then spend massive amounts of money fighting a victimless crime. And here we are in America where Marijuana is demonized as if it was instant death for anyone foolish enough to use it,and yet we bury close to 16,000 people a year due to alcohol,and that's just the traffic fatalities. I remember reading a part of a journal once of one of our founding fathers talking about how it was his greatest pleasure at the end of the day to sit on his porch watching the sun set with a fine bit of hemp(marijuana) to smoke. If I can find the quote again I'll post it somewher on here,as a question I suppose. The point being that if these men who were held up by some as the paragon of virtue by so many saw no problem with it why should we? Of course there were also houses of prostitution operating openly in Philadelphia at the time of the signing of the US constitution,as there were in most major cities,they may have disagreed with it but they did not go out of their way in most cases to do anything about.

2006-10-09 02:38:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Let me first state my point of view, not on this subject in particular, but on the rules of logic and arguing.

You may argue whatever you want and it can be the "dumbest idea in the world" for all I care. BUT you must have some semblance of reason and lack of hypocricy!

I do think people who do drugs with chidren being in harms way go to jail. The rest are only hurting themselves.

The only argument that you can really have against drugs (that are already illegal of course) is the societal cost. Now, until you think it is ok to control everything we eat, and the amount of exercise that we get, you have no right to say that people can not do drugs. More people die and more money is spent on obesity and related problems than drugs.

The only other argument is also very logically flawed, and that is drugs cause accidents so we should get them off of the streets. So does alcohol. So does driving after exercising for a long time, or staying awake for a long time, or a million other things. The drug is not the "bad" thing, it is the moron driving while on the drug.

For anyone that thinks that I just want to leagalize pot, you are wrong. I don't "do" drugs. I stay away from the legal ones and the illegal ones. I don't do alcohol, pot, crack, heck, I even stay away from caffeine. I say this soley for the purpose of letting people know that I don't have some hidden agenda.

I also find it amuzing that politicians will make an example of another's drug use be it cocaine, or even smoking or chewing in some instances and say something to the effect of the example they are setting for the children. Afterwards, they all go back to their homes and have a party and serve everyone alcohol.

2006-10-09 09:33:00 · answer #2 · answered by Truth 2 · 2 0

The could always decriminalize marijuana, that would take some of the strain off the prison systems , courts and tax burden.

They should stop demonizing marijuana and work on focusing ad making it apparent to the public how incredibly dangerous drugs like methamphetamines and cocaine are.

Alcohol remains legal with not even one medicinal quality while marijuana is a focal point in the war on drugs.

Most doctors would say that alcohol is incredibly harmful to the body as well as addictive.

good luck finding another liver when an alcoholics organ fails.

2006-10-09 09:10:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

i think it's a bit of both really. i mean, people should be aware of all the risks and consequences, but people should be free to make their own choices and mistakes. i know some very wealthy, well off people who are badly addicted so i don't think you could honestly say it cuts down homelessness and crime.

2006-10-09 09:10:07 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Unfortunately, hypocrisy is an impartial part of US "morality".

2006-10-09 09:08:43 · answer #5 · answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers