We have seen that it didn't with alcohol in the 1920's. Do you think the prohibition on drugs is working? We spend billions of dollars trying to control drugs, do you think we can spend that money on better uses? What do you think about it?
2007-10-03 18:18:17 · 9 answers · asked by Coma White 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
I would like to also add that you can get almost anything on the black market.
2007-10-03 18:32:58 · update #1
I think it has been proven that prohibition does not work. I think they should take all of the money they are wasting and put it into education and rehabilitation for those that seek it.
2007-10-03 19:56:16 · answer #1 · answered by sbyldy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Alcohol was legal before they enacted the prohibition on it in the 20's. I feel the basic reason it did not work at all was that once something has been allowed and not illegal, people are not going to agreeably let the law suddenly take it away from them. Drugs have never been legal. Thus, nobody can feel the law is taking away a right they once had. Yes we spend billions of dollars to stop illegal drugs, and obviously there is no absolute way to totally control it. Corruption by persons in authority is one of the reasons for the on going problem of illegal drugs. Despite the money to stop drugs, we have an epidemic of people with drug problems. I can't imagine what it would be like, if drugs were legal. At least, law abiding citizens will opt not to get involved and thereby saving some people from the horrors of drugs. We also know what the damages are from legal alcohol use. How many alcoholics and ruined lives are caused by this legal drug? I am not for legalizing drugs just because some people want the right to use them freely without fear of being arrested. Even tho Alcohol is legal, it causes so many deaths on the highways each year. Do we really want legal drugs and even more drivers under that influence as well? As for better uses for the billions spent> Well, why not talk about the billions wasted by government on other frivolous things? Take the money away from fighting drugs..no.. Take it away from things like being charged thousands of dollars for one bolt? YES.. There is too much other waste in government that could be deflected for good use. No, I do not feel that fighting drugs is a usless waste of time and money. It must be improved on but not abandoned. We cannot stop alot of murders either, but I doubt anyone in their right mind would say that we should legalize murder since we can't control it. To deter is the goal of the law. There must be attempts at control for the good of society. Without it, there would only be total chaos and anarchy which would ultimately destroy all.
2007-10-04 06:34:16 · answer #2 · answered by Joanie 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Allowing citizens access to drugs such as meth is immoral, by making it illegal they are taking a stand on something that effects the whole of society, the people around the meth user, and morons that uses the drug.
Meth users are a danger to others, period. The production of Meth is a hazard to anyone around the drugs, deadly fumes are given off that have killed both meth makers and innocent people who come in contact, as well as being explosive and a grave fire danger.
Meth users are frequently violent and unstable, or just ask the kid in AZ who’s father while on Meth cut is kids head of and thru it out of his car window. (This was caught on the dash cam of a AZ State Patrol car who was in pursuit at the time).
While you may have a point about the de-criminalization of some drugs, some can not be allowed to be legal.
2007-10-04 04:49:05 · answer #3 · answered by Magic Matt 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ask Al Capone if it worked.
Drugs are everywhere, believe me I know.
There is too much money being made by everyone in the supply chain for them to go away.
Bottom line is drugs are there because people want to use them.
Simple supply and demand economics, a bit like Walmart only drugs can kill you, ruin your life or force you to turn to crime to feed your habit.
2007-10-03 22:19:29 · answer #4 · answered by dave t 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To some extent, prohibition has prevented some citizens from alcohol and drugs. But for the hardened criminals, prohibition do not affect them.
2007-10-03 18:22:28 · answer #5 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no it replaced into an absolute failure. I did not something to construct the "ethical fiber" of u . s . a . and shrink the crime and debauchery linked with the "roaring 20's". The plan backfired in that it certainly brought about prepared crime to strengthen not purely in length yet additionally greater its sales to fund extra unlawful ventures. The delivery of bootleg liquor replaced right into a great business enterprise. The St. Valentines day bloodbath and the upward push of persons like Al Capone would nicely be immediately appropriate to the unlawful importation of alcohol. you additionally can examine out the quantity of time and funds the government spent attempting to enforce prohibition alongside with the lack of ability of taxes that could have been paid had alcohol been offered legally. With the great melancholy in finished swing that funds would have been placed to plenty extra clever use. universal prohibition replaced right into a great social failure
2016-10-06 01:59:20 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That won't work.
I'll tell you why...
People with always drink or smoke. There are things you can find in your back yard to smoke to get high. Also you can brew in your own house very easily.
2007-10-03 18:23:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would work just fine, in a police state. As far as anyone would be allowed to know anyway.
2007-10-03 18:29:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
we want people to know we doint change our ideas on things we jsut wonder why epole do them
2007-10-03 18:21:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋