YES.
All the illegality of drugs does right now is make cartels millions while giving our politicians an easy, symbolic, pointless issue on which to grandstand every election year.
If anybody honestly wants to argue that the legalization of drugs would lead to mass addiction, he first has to explain why we're not all alcoholics. You think your grandma's going to run out and buy a crack pipe on the big day? You think the current illegality actually stops anybody who wants to do drugs from doing them? Prohibition doesn't work. Never has, never will.
When I was in HS, we smoked weed rather than drinking - because it was easier to get! Get it? Sure, we had to expose ourselves to the criminal element, but it was a guaranteed sale!
Many people will admit these facts with regard to marijuana. The real reason it's still illegal is, of course, politics and vested interests. Until the pharmaceutical industry figures out a way to improve upon the bong hit, it's in its interest to keep the competition prosecutable; meanwhile hemp fiber from a legalized plant is a threat to the paper and textile industries. And, of course, there's nothing a campaigning politician relishes more than the chance to appear "proactive" to voting old ladies by promising to ratchet up the "Drug War" in his district.
But I'd extend legalization to ALL drugs on the same principles of common sense. 1) Drug illegality stops nobody from using drugs. 2) Drug legality encourages nobody to start using drugs who wouldn't have started anyway. 3) Most of the violence associated with drugs is actually a direct consequence of their illegality. 4) The "black market" for drugs makes dangerous criminals extremely wealthy and powerful. 5) Legalized drugs can be taxed and regulated.
2006-10-24 08:34:11
·
answer #1
·
answered by jonjon418 6
·
6⤊
1⤋
Serious Answer, With a CAVEAT. Yes, you make a good point.
All the new research supports placing cannabis in with the other substances as being very dangerous to about a quarter of the population. Self-medication is also quite dangerous, regardless of the substance.
CAVEAT: However, your question seems to neglect the huge impact on medical costs and productivity loss an immediate decriminilization all of those substances would create in the short-term. It is difficult to fire someone from their place of employment in many countries, and productivity might decline with the use of several of those drugs. Long-term, respect for consequences could hopefully deter drug usage. Cannabis is far more deleterious than people would like to believe, and scientific research is finding this, but the research has only been done for about 10 years There is a lot of belief invested in the misconception that cannabis and the components present with it are somehow less dangerous than alcohol.
Thoughts based on quite a bit of current research:
Cannabis is taxed in the USA, but very few people pay the federal tax, or are even aware such a tax exists. The cannabis tax was enacted because prohibition was repealed during the depression, and all those revenuers with guns still wanted jobs.
Illegal pyschoactive drugs have replaced the market niche for criminal activity that alcohol once filled. So your premise would eliminate a criminal element's income for a short while It would also save quite a bit of governmental monies spent on enforcement and incarceration.
Perhaps you might look at The Netherlands experience with decriminilization of drugs. The result of their specific laws outlawing specific drugs is that chemists of varying abilities develop new chemicals that are similar to the illegal ones, and yet haven't been criminalized or even tested yet. This is also the reason The Netherlands is the only country where cannabis doesn't qualify as a gateway drug, because the new chemicals aren't on the schedule yet.
Most self-medicaters are unable to accurately determine the impact the drugs or medicines have on them, because their thought processes are impaired. I have worked with impaired people who actually thought they were doing better work when impaired than when they weren't. Consequently, I will not knowingly work with someone under impairment, and have had to restructure my business so that I only employ contract workers for a specific activity.
A lot of young people do like to rebel, or engage in risky or dangerous behavior. Some other activity would replace drug usage, and hopefully it would be a less harmful activity to themselves and to society at large.
People are seriously mistaken to think cannabis is harmless. Some people do abuse others when they are impaired with cannabis, although not all the people all the time. A LOT of people cause serious car accidents when under the influence of cannabis, but aren't caught, and rarely tested for the presence of illegal drugs after a car wreck.
In my state, a bar or restaurant can be held criminally and civilly liable for damages if they serve alcohol to an impaired person. That has little effect on the liquor store that sells alcohol to a sober person who later over-indulges.
You mention parental responsibility, which is a nice fantasy in my world, but didn't mention personal responsibility. For some reason, minors aren't held to much account for their own responsibilities. Of course it should be parental responsibility to teach their children well, but not all parents are capable, or even inclined, to do so. Minors should be taught responsibility for the consequences of their actions, but it really (i hate hillary) does take an entire society to help shape the children into the adults they will become. That includes schools and social groups.
Education is the key to helping build a better society, but it is such a nebulous term, in practice it just seems to be a word on a grant application.
I apologize for the length of my answer, and may review it for further explanation or clarification.
I think your question deserves serious consideration by every individual, household, school, social group, and governmental agency.
2006-10-24 16:13:57
·
answer #2
·
answered by Ragnarok 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Marinol (THC) is a legal prescription drug in the U.S. It is not popular, however.
I actually am reasonably knowledgeable, compared to other student pharmacists, about these drugs because I took the recreational drug course as an elective. The knowledge of the action of these drugs do vary. There is not a good consensus on how long some of the effects of marijuana last. One study tested the impacted of marijuana on pilot's flying ability. They did one baseline "flight." Then had the pilots smoke one joint of fixed weight. They waited for 24 hours. The pilots said they felt fine, and the marijuana effects were gone. Then, they preceeded to crash their same simulated flight.
Crack, meth and heroin are a lot worse than marijuana. I would not feel right selling these drugs.
2006-10-24 21:50:44
·
answer #3
·
answered by Lea 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The politicians are making money from illegal drugs so there is no way they would allow them to become legal. Not to mention drugs come from countries in the carribean and south America and I think the only (brown)people the govt. will allow to become wealthy is the sheiks in the middle east. I think it would disgust them if they had to deal with more brown multimillionaires who got rich from american consumers wanting the natural resources of their country. If europe could grow the same amount of drugs as other parts of the world I honestly believe drugs would be a legal multibillion dollar buisness like how the pharmecuetical buisness is.
2006-10-24 15:43:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
BRAVO I agree 99.9% there are those few pharmacist, that would sell it to benefit themselves, but I think it should be available as a prescription drug. Marijuana especially the others stil not sure what they could help you with but hey I am sure there is something out there that it can help. My reasonings though behind have words of caution. Yes the taxation on these drugs would be fabulous probably enough to eliminate our national debt LOL.
2006-10-24 15:47:10
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Uh, that's kind of a loaded question. If you legalize it then parent's would have nothing to tand on for why their children shouldn't be doing it. And neither would the government. If it were sold legally in drugstores that means it would be made legally in factories, you think greenpeace hates America now...? Besides the cost of drugs would be so outrageous it would push it back into the streets anyway...think of New York City with their knock off jewelry stands, you'll end up with knock off drugs that would probably end up even more dangerous then the ones that are out there now. There is NO solution to the drug epidemic, the only thing is for parents to be vigilant and to pay attention. Education is key.
2006-10-24 15:42:57
·
answer #6
·
answered by Passionfire 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
I get what you're saying, and the war on drugs has caused more deaths than all the drug overdoses combined, but I don't think you are going to get many people to accept this. We have been too brainwashed to accept anything less than fighting, even if winning isn't possible. The only solution for many is no drugs, even if we have to kill or imprison everyone to keep them straight. That doesn't even take into consideration all the innocent people who die because of fighting between gangs and police.
2006-10-24 15:43:48
·
answer #7
·
answered by DJ 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
All drugs should be decriminalized and prescribed as needed. Marijuana is not a drug, as it is a plant. Synthetic THC, as a drug, would need a prescription, and dangerous drugs have been rendered moot. Since plants should be cultivated as needed, pot should be legalized.
2006-10-24 15:36:02
·
answer #8
·
answered by irish_american_psycho 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
No,the local convenience store is closer.
2006-10-24 16:50:50
·
answer #9
·
answered by Rich B 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
don't lump weed with crack, meth, or heroin
but i agree.
2006-10-24 15:36:39
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋