I would like to respond to his comments in a manner that hopefully won't sound like the usual hippie-styled "but it feels good". Would Mr. Sabet rather that we made alcohol and tobacco illegal? What about all harmful things, a la Demolition Man, such as caffeine, salt, spicy food, even so far as cursing (I'm sure that bit was a joke)? Where is the line between arguing against the gateway drug and arguing against personal choice?
The only reason that I am for a legalization policy is that I do not feel that it is the government's job to protect me from myself. Protect the general welfare should mean promote legal activity and ensure equality not prevent unsafe decisions and ensure mediocrity.
If it weren't for alcohol and tobacco and the hundreds of billions of dollars in social costs would we have as many doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, social workers, jailers, probation officers, counselers, support groups, etc? That's a lot of jobs to consider. Cheap argument I know, but it's valid.
I suppose the real issue for me isn't marijuana or tobacco or heroine or whatever other specific substance one could choose, the issue is much more broad: does the government have the right or the ability to protect me from myself? I do not believe that it does and I believe that the cost of losing our liberty is much greater than any dollar figure anyone can make up about the social cost of our vices.
Posts
To read an article from The Economist titled "Drug Policy in the Americas: At Last a Debate" follow this link: http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13905530&fsrc=rss
ReplyDeleteHERE HERE
ReplyDeleteThe New York Times posted an op-ed titled "Marijuana is Gateway Drug for Two Debates" which discusses both sides of the argument and really should be read by anybody who reads this post: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/fashion/19pot.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
ReplyDeleteI read the blog and both posted articles. I must say I have been for the legalization of marrijuana, if it was feasible. Yes, I realize you are more for the goverment not saying that "drugs are bad" and let people do as they please. Fine, good dream and I like it. Can the legalization of mary-jane work for the country financially? In the long run, maybe no. Can it work to stop crime? Depends....Consider this, if you please.
ReplyDeleteWhen alcohol was illegal oh so many years ago, people went to speak-easys and drank in secret and the main crime was bootlegging. But, the ban on the suds was lifted and alcohol was made purchasable once more. So have drunken car incidents, spousal abuse, the degradation of the countries overall health (obesity), degraded overall national intelligence (the suds do kill off those oh so precious braincells, afterall), and so on.
Of course, let me just say that all of those things are mere theory and alcohol may have had nothing to do with any of them, but those are just easy corolations that alcohol may have had a decent amoutn to do with. So, we throw pot into the mix and make it avaiable publicly. Then anyone that was on the fence over the subject due to i's legality gives it a shot. They love it and wnt to do more of it. They find it's the only way they can relax. They begin to go out of their way to spend thousands a year on the stuff.
That's their choice.
And the goverment does protect you from yourself, in many ways. You can't drive (legally) without a liscense, nor fly an F-15 Strike Eagle without perfect vision, nor take hydrocodine at will, nor build a Tomahawk Cruise missile, nor have a handgun without a CCW, nor etc. There are restrictions, and frankly I say so what. Some are ridiculous, some not really, just blown outta proportion.
I should note though that I for one am a straight-edge, don't drink, smoke (anything), or experiment. It's really not that bad a life, either. But that's just me and maybe not for everyone....maybe.
Once again Stan, you have proven yourself to be an uninformed rambling fool. Your assesment of the goings on during alcohol prohibition are completely devoid of any connection to reality. In fact, It is so far from anything resembling truth that i wonder if you arent just pulling these things out of thin air simply to start an argument here. You have absolutely no proof of anything you said. So, as usual, let me correct you. There was actually a DROP in alcohol related violence after prohibition was lifted. All of the money from the sales of booze was going into the hands of criminals. You might have heard of Al Capone. The mob came to its real power under prohibition just as street gangs are today because of drugs. There was chaos and murder in the streets of all the major cities during prohibition and since alcohol is no longer banned, you don't see crowds of people gunned down over alcohol. This is because the people dealing in the alcohol industry are law abiding citizens and don't want to risk their livelihood on crime and if they are ripped off they can go to the cops so no need to shoot anyone. when you push these powerful and valuable commodities out of the economy proper it goes onto the black market where you are a criminal for dealing there anyway and there is the real danger. Also, for those unlucky enough to get addicted to a drug (including alcohol) price is not a consideration. Leviathan and i can both tell you this with certainty. We recently had a "friend" with a secret drug problem rob us both. His chosen drug happens to cost him over $100 per fix. This is obviously an expensive habit. He only made enough money to get through about 4 days of the week and that is if he didn't buy pesky things like, gas, food, rent, you know ... luxuries. So, did the high price of his addiction stop him? No, he started stealing. and not a little. in 2 months he stole 2000 in cash and goods form my home. This does not include the other people he stole from to get his fox. If this drug was not a controlled substance it wouldn't have that taboo to it. It would not be so expensive, he wouldn't have to break the law just to get it. and there should be less if any peripheral crime to his addiction. Meaning, he wouldn't have to steal from me to get his fix. He was also a functional addict. If his drug was cheaper and more available i could have gone years without even knowing he had a problem. I didnt get robbed because of a drug. i got robbed because a drug is illegal. I dont do drugs either, but I am smart enough to realize that the war on drugs has failed and does nothing but make the drug problem worse. And all those things you listed as protecting me from myself, many were protecting us from each other which is a different argument. ans i think most or all of them should not be regulated. Stan I dont understand why you hate freedom or why you insist on posting inflammatory dreg. next time take 5 mins and read up on a subject before you write about it.
ReplyDeleteYou are Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh rolled into one fat man.
ReplyDeleteSee, we can all comment like insulting children and not grown-ups. If you disagree with me, fine, do so, this is your right to have an opinion. Since when did mine get absolved? Next time if you want to comment against me, use this little thing called "tact."