You're not the only one paying taxes.
Neither are you...
No it doesn't, its how we go about it. Throwing everybody behind bars doesn't help, putting casual users in state funded detox and sellers and suppliers behind bars works better and is cheaper. Also poverty is a bigger cause.
What you're suggesting sounds like decriminalization. In that case legalization can have the same thing and more. The drugs will be regulated, resulting in them being less harmful, people being more aware of the effects. It will be harder for minors to obtain them. And the government will make money that can go towards state funded detox centers instead of losing money on funding them.
And even if we did make legal the drug would be taxed heavy and would still be cheaper in Mexico, so this is a moot comment.
You're being ignorant of the obvious and substantial decline in crime that would result. Alcohol and cigarettes are cheaper in Mexico, but there isn't really much money to be made in it, so drug lords don't bother doing it. And taxing it sucks, but Alcohol and cigarettes are taxed, and the government would make money that could go towards drug treatment centers.
Slipperly slope argument. Those drug lords would still be there and your tax money would still be used regardless.
The drug lords would lose a huge portion of their "income" which funds their numbers and their power. They would still make money i.e. things like gun tafficking and other crimes, but a large amount of criminal organizations make the majority if not all of their money through drug trafficking, and legalizing drugs would be a huge blow to them. And yes my tax money would be used regardless, but it can be used for something beneficial to society, like universal health care.
Nice try, but from a logical standpoint anyone can disagree with you. Drugs are not beneficial to society and the negative side effects the people have to pay are not beneficial.
Obviously the negative effects are not benefial. But, from a logical standpoint, legalizing drugs has less repurcussions and negative effects on society than keeping it illegal and enforcing drug laws.
Keeping it illegal negatives: billions of wasted taxpayer dollars, increased crime rate, putting people without a record of violence behind bars and exposing them to a violent and criminal environment, funding drug lords and criminal organizations, easier for minors to buy, more dangerous to users. Positives: less people use them, considered socially unacceptable to use them.
Keeping it legal positives: instead of wasting billions on a war that funds violence and drug lords, billions can be made in profit and used for something more benefical to society. Crime rate will be lowered, drug trafficking increases crime rate, users of illegal drus become addicts and commit crimes to support and fund their habit, people who use drugs but are not violent in any way get put in prison and are more prone to violence. It is harder for minors to obtain, since people who work at convience stores are less likely to sell a kid drugs than a dealer. Drugs would be regulated and would be much safer for use than as they are now. If alcohol were illegal, it would arguably be more dangerous than heroin or crack, as people would not know the amount of alochol in the liquid they are given, and it would most likely be mixed with all kinds of dangerous liquids and substances, resulting in it being much more harmful and a higher death rate. If drugs were legal, many drugs currently illegal would most likely be less harmful than alcohol when regulated and enforced as the legal drugs are now.
So what? Should anybody be denied care because some crackhead abused his body?
No one should be denied care, that's why we should have universal health care. Some crackhead brought up in a crime and illegal drug infested environement
should be treated as well, and part of his or her health care treatment should be rehabilitation, as a crackhead can harm others, such as a baby born from a crackhead mother. Universal health care can potentially lower drug abuse, benefiting the country as a whole.
That can be easily fixed if true, but private ones have issues as well including higher costs to people and sometimes lower avaliabilty of service.
I don't know if it can be fixed so easily. Public education is a government funded program, and I know billions of the stimulus plan is going towards it, and maybe that will fix it. Neither private nor government funded are perfect, but in the case of universal health care, we can have both. People can get free health care like kids can get free public education, but they can also pay for a private one as they can do with education. Win win.
This has nothing to do with anything in this topic.
I was using it as an example of a government funded program... but whatever.
No it doesn't. Both can be one in the same and you haven't disproven this. So if I buy a game I want it doesn't count as both? Of course it does. The fact is as long as the tax payer pays for peoples care they have the RIGHTto take an interest in what people are doing to it. If health care demand goes up so does costs and taxes to pay for increased costs. Logically the government reserves the right to take steps to make the populace healthier to cut health care costs down. When something is a drain on government funds they have the right to cut this, so they have a right to ban cancer causing materials and encourage the decline useage of others, which they are doing. Since personal and economic freedom can be seen as one in the same like I stated above the people also reserve the right to have a say in how their money is being spent. So no, it is not what you say it is. Since you are not the only taxpayer out there and people abusing their bodies does effect others by costs or second hand the people do have a right to have a say, don't like it then you do not reserve the right to complain or use public health care, pay for your own and drive yourself to the hospital, don't mind paying for others care no matter what? Write them a check, but don't get mad if other disagree.
Economic freedom is what you believe is more important then. I believe personal freedom is. They are both one in the same in circumstances, but in reality someone born into an imporvershied violent environment doesn't have the same personal freedoms you have. They may have the same rights economically, but they obviously don't have the same oppurtunities as in reality things aren't that black and white. My belief is there should be government funded programs to aid people who have the unfortune of being in these situations, so they at least have a freedom closer to those who have had these things. I don't believe in an all out socialist government, where we are all essentially one ****and don't have the freedom to do what we desire. I guess you could say I just want the lower ****not to be so low, and have what is now low-middle ****to middle ****as the lowest standard of living for an American. There can still be private institutions and capitalist oppurtunities. But my view involves yours and my taxpayer dollars going towards government funded institutions such as education and health care. You say this is infringing on your freedoms, as you don't believe your money should go towards other people's personal freedom(freedom to learn(education), to be in decent health(healthcare), etc.). You believe more in economic freedom. I believe more in personal freedom and equality, so all people can have oppurtunity.
Back to topic, legalizing drugs is logically more benefical than keeping them illegal.
MoonMarvel
Log in to comment