[QUOTE="Buddha_basic"][QUOTE="bugtrip"][QUOTE="Buddha_basic"]But why make the act of using this drug illegal? The laws against assault or driving under the influence or whatever will still be there.bugtrip
Thats exactly like saying Vehicular manslaughter is an OK law, but getting into the car drunk should be perfectly legal. Of course not every intoxicated driver is going to kill somebody, but eventually it happens doesn't it? And it will happen frequently as statistics show. Let's just make automatic assault rifles legal in our schools, after all, Gun Control would only defer from our right to have a good time with assault rifles. I hope you see what I'm get'n at. If we were to legalize drugs, I would motion for the legalization of marijuana, a substance which has been proven a safer alternative to alcohol time and time again for countless reasons. Perhapse we meet half way here. But thats sort of where im getting at but having a hard time phrasing it. Driving under the influence SHOULD continue to be illegal. But putting a substance in your body (hell when alcohol and cigarettes are legal) should not be illegal. But knowing not to drive is dependant on your level of decision making. How many heroin addicts would not have committed the crimes that put them into prison, killed them or hurt/killed people around them had it not been for the drug's influence? You can't compare a very serious and highly addictive drug to alcohol and merijuana. There's plenty of scientific and sociological evidence based off credibly fortified research to suggest that heroin is ultimately a huge drain on society and human life. Laws exist to protect us from ourselves, and only faith in that concept will keep people from anarchy, and anarchy via any simulation never ends well, it is the reason to the eutopic theory's proven impossibility. Drugs are a huge factor in true freedom's demise, as it is a portal into crime. I am not trying to compare marijuana to heroin. In fact one of the main reasons marijuana isnt physically addictive is because, unlike an opiate (heroin), it doesnt cause a surge of dopamine to be produced while inhibiting regulation of dopamine receptors. But common LAW will have it that marijuana is addictive because you gain a tollerance, and addiction is defined as "needing more to produce the same effects as before". And anyone with a tollerance to any substance will need more. So i think we can agree the law is backwards on this. Further proof is that marijuana is a schedule 1 substance... ahead of methamphetime and opiates.
My point being is, (you say it yourself), people use these drugs. So the consequences of using these drugs are felt regardless of whether it is illegal or not. All i am saying is that the use of these drugs should not be illegal becasue that is the choice of the user, not anyone else. And i dont watn to pay for someones visit in jail because they chose to put something in their own body. When taht choice harms someone else, then tehy should be put in jail. I.E. When a drunk gets behind the wheel.
The war on drugs has created needless orginized crime, and a black market for this substance.
Log in to comment