Even if he was exactly right, that doesn't matter. People should be free to poison their bodies if they wish. It may lead to a world where more people do hard drugs, but there are no drug cartels, and addicts don't have to be worried about dying because of poisons in the drug. Also, the cost would fall tremendously, so addicts wouldn't have to be homeless because of their habit. There's literally no good argument against legalization, and that's not something I usually say about issues.the drugs themselves are poison. That's a pretty good argument.[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]Also, TopTierHustler, you keep bringing up the point about the ubiquitous lack of self-control in the US. First of all, that's most likely an overstatement; there are a lot of people who lack self-control, but there are also quite a few who do have it. Second, the lack of self-control is most likely a sociocultural problem - at least on a significant level - so my point still stands. The consequences of legalization that you predict are in no way inevitable.TopTierHustler
A couple more.
-increased medical costs for everybody.
-stress caused on people's families of addicts.
-increased mortality rate.
-drop in progress for workers.
-children would suffer as money goes to drugs that should go to them.
And you shouldn't be able to re strict people from voluntarily putting it in their bodies. None of those problems even remotely come close to the benefit of destroying the modern black market drug trade. All these arguments, every last one could be made arguing against repealing prohibition in the 1920s. In fact, these arguments were made. Replace "drugs' with "alcohol, and there's be no way to tell the difference between your position and the Temperance Movement. They weren't good arguments then, and they aren't now.
Log in to comment