2007-08-23 01:00:09 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Phenominal question, and one that I hope our generation solves and moves forward with:
The war on drugs is an imaginary "war" on a tangable object that served no more than buying votes from a gullable public to make politicians look good. Even gov't officials and police organizations openly discuss the complete failure of this ineffective "war."
The result is massive police task forces, up to 65% of certain jails filled with drug offenders, clogged court systems, and more multi billion dollar wasted taxation expendatures that have a double negative effect on the US economy.
Taxing drugs and regulating production would end gang turf wars, end the deaths of children and other innocents in drive by shootings, and end the psychological demand for drugs.
In this we see that anything that is prohibited (such as alcohal in the past) is sought after more by children, teens, and adults.
A simple stroll on a mexican street with an open beer (where I don't believe there's an age limit, and if so, very young) and you'll never see local children or adults drinking.
The real concept is mindblowing: Eliminating the billions in tax dollars spent on industries that need not exist (courts, police, programs, etc) and we put the dollars right back into our pockets. And when we have $$ in our pockets, we spend money on goods and services creating "real jobs" to those formerly employed by this industry and we all actually "contribute" to the economic strength of our country.
Most are unaware, but in reality - the vast majority of gov't intervention is done so not in the best long term interests of the people, but to look good in the eyes of voting blocks in the next election. Nother more. Period.
2007-08-23 01:18:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i'm quite stunned it hasn't been. If it became into, the government ought to tax it. it may be presented from criminal sources and everyone merchandising it illegally could the two ought to undercut the criminal providers or pass out of organization. Is that no longer ordinary adequate? i do no longer think it incredibly is drastically worse than time-honored cigarettes, different than there is documented information that prolonged heavy use could reason each and all of the failings that tobacco can with the added 'earnings' of memory loss and psychosis. i've got not got information of this individually, however the British scientific Council incredibly does and this has been researched exhaustively via multiple diverse universities for years. the only way you should die from smoking hashish is probable via choking on a Wotsit from the all evening storage once you get the munchies. i think of it incredibly is risk-free to assert there has under no circumstances been a death promptly thank you to hashish. it incredibly is going to impact respiration issues like allergies however, yet once you're smoking something once you're asthmatic it is your man or woman bloody fault.
2016-11-13 05:54:28 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
YES. And for those that say 'no'....consider this.
I've seen a great many 'angry drunks'. I've never seen an 'angry stoner'.
"Big Pharm" has tried many times to synthesize THC because of it's useful side effects.
Cannabis is all natural, and the parts of the plant that are not smoked can be used to make a great many things. Hemp is a very versatile cash crop.
We spend hundreds of millions every year to enforce, prosecute and incarcerate people that are caught with cannibis. We could turn that loss of tax dollars into a profit, overnight.
It makes legal sense, moral sense and financial sense. There is no good rationale to keep this natural resource on the list of illegal substances.
2007-08-23 01:13:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think Alcohol is worse for you than cannabis but thats just my opinion. I think cannabis should be legalized but only for small amounts. Anything that altars your perception, even for a little while, should be moderated. If you are in your own home you should be able to grow/smoke as much as you want.
I think if this did ever happen the government would make the taxes on cannabis extremely high. Over time the prices would fall but at first it would be too costly for the average pot smoker to afford.
2007-08-23 01:08:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
HEY Chesca 84: what about all the side effects and health problems associated with tobacco and alcohol? they are both legal. well?
Andr: it is a good damn thing people don't do psychotic things under the influence of alcohol - right?
Firefoxy: i'm glad alcohol doesn't have any nasty side effects - aren't you? How is my answer stupid? Canabis has been around and used way before distilled spirits! Bet on it! How is Canabis new? My answer is stupid because you don't have your facts straight? I don't even smoke herb and I can see what is a health risk and what isn't! Don't hear about a stoner getting high and beating his wife night after night - or smoking and driving accidents...but what do I know, I'm stupid. OH and FYI - booze was made illegal in the 1920's. That worked out real well.
2007-08-23 01:05:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
no...
it has many serious side effects and long term health effects.
No matter how natural you think it is....
Strains have been bred to increase the THC content
the usual street product is a lot stronger than the product on the street 20 years ago, and a lot stronger than would have been found in the natural environment a few hundred years ago.
JayBee... your answer is stupid... Alcohol and tobacco would not be legalised if they were 'new' products.
they are only allowed to remain in society due to their long standing acceptance by society... and even those are subect to increasing restriction and legislation
2007-08-23 01:07:45 · answer #6 · answered by Vinni and beer 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
at this point i woudl say yes!
the war on drugs has failed, it is a HUGE waste of money.
if we were to legalize and CONTROL drugs we woould be much better of.
i dont do drugs, and if it was legal i still wouldnt do drugs and i dont think that it being ilegal really stops any one from doing them(look at Lindsey Lohan, Paris Hilton, ect)
but if they were leagal it would basically destroy gangs, mafia, and the cartel!. we could also make sure that people arnt getting rat poison instead of cocaine.
the war on drugs is lost its time to try something different.
2007-08-23 01:10:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely no - it legitimises psychosis.
Please note - psychosis is different than doing 'psychotic' things - it is a state of mind. Anything which results in people losing their minds is wrong. Stoned people may not beat their wives, but they sure as hell kill people from reckless driving too. The argument that it is better than alcohol is plain nuts. If you've seen a friend ending up in the nut house then legalising cannabis would make you cringe.
2007-08-23 01:02:00 · answer #8 · answered by Andr 4 · 2⤊ 5⤋
No, they will never legalise an illegal drug such as cannabis - due to all the side effects and health problem caused by cannabis
2007-08-23 01:03:04 · answer #9 · answered by °º© r u b y l i g h t s ©º° 4 · 2⤊ 5⤋
I see no other way of regulating the problem.
2007-08-23 01:23:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋