You want to add recreational drug users to the ranks of smokers and drinkers?
"This is money we would not have to spend on 'em if we weren't busily locking them up and turning whole segments of our nation into cesspits of crime."
Well, if we weren't locking them up, then we'd be locking up the "real" criminals instead, right? Where's the savings?
"Again, go back to Prohibition: that stroke of astonishing stupidity allowed organized crime to grow like mad."
Uh-huh. And when Prohibition went away, so did organized crime? Oh, but it'll be different this time I suppose. Yeah, right.
"If money is your concern... legalize 'em. And tax 'em. Do to pot and coke and Extacy and whatnot what Utah did with hard booze."
Money is not my concern. It does, however, seem to be yours.
If you want to equate a state's handling of booze with recreational drugs, then turn the drug legalization decision over to the states the same way we did with alcohol -- by constitutional amendment.
"but in reduced recognition of human rights"
Oh, please. How about the WOD representing an increased recognition of human dignity?
> You want to add recreational drug users to the ranks of smokers and drinkers?
They're already there.
> Well, if we weren't locking them up, then we'd be locking up the "real" criminals instead, right?
If we weren't locking up schmoes for having a joint, then we'd be locking up fewer people.
>>"Again, go back to Prohibition: that stroke of astonishing stupidity allowed organized crime to grow like mad."
> Uh-huh. And when Prohibition went away, so did organized crime?
No, it didn't. It went into other drugs. Largely because Prohibition didn't exactly go away, now, did it?
> If you want to equate a state's handling of booze with recreational drugs, then turn the drug legalization decision over to the states the same way we did with alcohol -- by constitutional amendment.
Nope. Try again. There were *two* ammendments, the second one repealing the first stupid one.
> How about the WOD representing an increased recognition of human dignity?
No resemblence to reality there. You do not "recognize human dignity" by arbitrarily deciding that one drug is legal and another isn't.
> You want to add recreational drug users to the ranks of smokers and drinkers?
They're already there.
> Well, if we weren't locking them up, then we'd be locking up the "real" criminals instead, right?
If we weren't locking up schmoes for having a joint, then we'd be locking up fewer people.
>>"Again, go back to Prohibition: that stroke of astonishing stupidity allowed organized crime to grow like mad."
> Uh-huh. And when Prohibition went away, so did organized crime?
No, it didn't. It went into other drugs. Largely because Prohibition didn't exactly go away, now, did it?
> If you want to equate a state's handling of booze with recreational drugs, then turn the drug legalization decision over to the states the same way we did with alcohol -- by constitutional amendment.
Nope. Try again. There were *two* ammendments, the second one repealing the first stupid one.
> How about the WOD representing an increased recognition of human dignity?
No resemblence to reality there. You do not "recognize human dignity" by arbitrarily deciding that one drug is legal and another isn't.