Were we a 'pro-dope' nation for the century-plus when drugs were legal?
No, we didn't need a WOD until the liberal left began their campaign to dismantle this country with the 'free love' and 'pro dope' movements in the 50s. Funny how that coincides with the 'red menace', and the Cold War, no?
The paycheck for free love is rampant STDs, AIDS and 40 million abortions.
The paycheck for the pro-dope agenda is broken families, crime, homelessness and neglected children. That's what we've got when we say we don't want drugs. You're positing that it will be better if we just let everyone have drugs. That's preposterous.
No, blaming the problems of the WOD on the WOD is a common sound argument; deaths of innocents in drug-turf wars, enrichment of criminals, and corruption of the justice system by enriched criminals are all caused by the WOD just as they were caused by Prohibition.
The addictive characteristics of drugs and alcohol are dissimilar physiologically. Cocaine, marijuana and heroin are not comparable to alcohol, which has been synthesized widely in the human species for thousands of years. You're making an apples and oranges argument.
I'm saying the root effects of 'free love' and 'free dope' is a distinct loss of humanity (read: crime, neglected children, abortion, divorce).
For a government (which is made up of people) to throw in the towel on its own citizens is an abomination.
His rights include every act that doesn't violate somebody else's rights. Which "effects of a stoned society" violate your rights?
At a minimum: a PREVENTABLE loss of productivity, increase in welfare and disability recipients, unsafe streets with stoners and addicts driving, higher insurance costs, higher prescription drug costs, child addicts, neglected children, increases in violent crime.
If you think the government is intrusive now, wait til the liberals have us all picking up after- and paying for- the remnants of your little utopia.
Then why were drugs criminalized several decades earlier? Your 'history of drugs' is flawed.
broken families, crime, homelessness and neglected children. That's what we've got when we say we don't want drugs. You're positing that it will be better if we just let everyone have drugs.
No I'm not---except for crime, which is fueled by high drug prices, which are fueled by their illegality.
The addictive characteristics of drugs and alcohol are dissimilar physiologically.
Provide evidence for your claim.
Which "effects of a stoned society" violate your rights?
At a minimum: a PREVENTABLE loss of productivity,
You have no "right" to others' productivity.
increase in welfare and disability recipients,
To give taxpayer money to anyone, drug-disabled or otherwise, is a societal choice, not a requirement imposed by the recipients. I'm for ending ALL welfare, and I'd support denying it to drug or alcohol users.
unsafe streets with stoners and addicts driving,
Equally an argument for banning alcohol. Why should ALL users be punished because of what SOME users do?
higher insurance costs,
You have no "right" to low insurance costs.
higher prescription drug costs,
Why?
child addicts,
If drugs were legal only for adults, there might very well be fewer child users, since drug sellers would have an economic incentive to not sell to children---namely, the risk of losing their legal adult market.
neglected children,
Equally an argument for banning alcohol. Why should ALL users be punished because of what SOME users do?
increases in violent crime.
From the U.S. Department of Justice's National Criminal Justice Reference Service (publication NCJ 145534): "Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression. [...] Marijuana and opiates temporarily inhibit violent behavior [...] There is no evidence to support the claim that snorting or injecting cocaine stimulates violent behavior. [...] Anecdotal reports notwithstanding, no research evidence supports the notion that becoming high on hallucinogens, amphetamines, or PCP stimulates violent behavior in any systematic manner."
Wasn't this also about the time that the "New Deal" and the "Great Society" took root? I wonder if they have anything to do with the growth of the state and its invasion of every facet of our private life. Hmmmmm?