I wonder - is it possible for the recreational drug lobby to make an argument for the legalization of illicit drugs (such as marijuana) WITHOUT referencing alcohol? I can't recall ever seeing that. I don't know if I've ever seen a pro-drug person make a cogent argument without pointing the finger at Mr. Alcohol saying "But, but, but, he got away with it!"
I do like the idea that "ending prohibition will eliminate the problems associated with prohibition." You think? That's a tautology. Decriminalizing the possession of drugs will do nothing to alleviate the problems associated with the abuse of drugs, but yes - it will decriminalize possession. The abuse of drugs is a problem with drugs, not with prohibition.
There is a reason things are done the way they are. Marijuana is where "the line" is drawn. Despite what the drug lobby might repeatedly pound, jails are not full of recreational drug users. I've known more than a few people who have been cited for marijuana possession, and I think it's been worse to run a red light. So as long as the line stays there, marijuana has its status as illegal but "not that bad." And hence not strictly enforced. It's much like driving 5 MPH over the speed limit. If you raise the speed limit, can you still drive 5 MPH over the limit? Where does it stop?
Alcohol IS a drug that can be abused. The difference between alcohol and hard drugs is that you really need to try to abuse alcohol, as your body physiologically rejects excessive consumption of alcohol. As such, alcohol tends to be used in moderation with minimal effects - often unnoticeable. Harder drugs don't work that way - or at least nobody's told me about "Heroin Lite." Unless, of course, you want your drugs "altered" by the people seeking profit.
As long as demand exists, profit will exist. It's simple. Legalized recreational drugs would be heavily regulated and we'd have a whole host of "legal limits" for a whole host of different drugs. Great, let's creative a massive new department called the ATFCHM (or whatever other drugs you want to add) so we can make the government bigger.
This is not that difficult to understand. Legalizing drugs would at best transfer problems from one area to another and would undoubtedly create a massive new bureaucracy to deal with all of it.
But prohibition's enrichment of criminals, and the ills that exacerbates, is a problem with prohibition.
There is a reason things are done the way they are. Marijuana is where "the line" is drawn.
And what is the reason for that ... since marijuana is less addictive than alcohol, and unlike alcohol does not lead to fatal overdose nor increase violent behavior?
Nice post, newbie.
>>Decriminalizing the possession of drugs will do nothing to alleviate the problems associated with the abuse of drugs<<
True, but it will sure eliminate the problems associated with the WOD, just as ending prohibition eliminated the problems associated with prohibition.
FWIW, the worst drug I ever took was Marijuana, and the last time I tried it was in 1978. I am staunchly against the WOD and think it has literally harmed our culture as much as the Great Society has. Probably more.