Posted on 09/14/2009 2:43:42 PM PDT by freepersunite
Far from protecting us and our children, the war on drugs is making the world a much more dangerous place.
SO FAR this year, about 4000 people have died in Mexico's drugs war - a horrifying toll. If only a good fairy could wave a magic wand and make all illegal drugs disappear, the world would be a better place.
Dream on. Recreational drug use is as old as humanity, and has not been stopped by the most draconian laws. Given that drugs are here to stay, how do we limit the harm they do?
The evidence suggests most of the problems stem not from drugs themselves, but from the fact that they are illegal. The obvious answer, then, is to make them legal.
The argument most often deployed in support of the status quo is that keeping drugs illegal curbs drug use among the law-abiding majority, thereby reducing harm overall. But a closer look reveals that this really doesn't stand up. In the UK, as in many countries, the real clampdown on drugs started in the late 1960s, yet government statistics show that the number of heroin or cocaine addicts seen by the health service has grown ever since - from around 1000 people per year then, to 100,000 today. It is a pattern that has been repeated the world over.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
If we're talking about adults, in 99% of cases, wouldn't the "person who got their relative started" on drugs really just be the relative himself?
Everybody has heard "Just say No." If someone decides to "say Yes" then isn't the addiction their own fault?
Second question: Yes, everyone has the power to say no, but with the 'Family Avenger Program', the maggots would be more careful about who they tried to get addicted.
While drugs are a powerful lure, eventually there are whole lot fewer addicts, thus less demand, thus less corruption.
Great, so does that mean I could have killed the liquor store owner who got my step-mom started on booze? Who also died of cirrhosis of the liver from her alcohol abuse?
Hmmm...Amsterdam has lax drug laws. Detroit doesn’t. Using that logic, lax drug laws decrease crime, not increase it.
Because they won’t be able to compete. Why isn’t there a sizable black market for beer in this country? Because black market prices (much higher markup at every step than normal retail) and lack of quality control just plain can’t compete with Bud and Sam and the rest of the legal beer makers and their distribution network. If drugs cot legalized the cartels would have to compete with Bud and Marlboro and they’d lose.
So if drugs become legal then your solution doesn’t apply, right?
And what sort of idiot doesn’t know the addictive qualities of most illicit drugs?
Remember, I don't want to run the world, I just would like Joe Sixpack & Kin to have the same things any connected Mafia Family would have.
Ok, so if it doesn’t matter if the drugs are legal or not why can’t my step-mother’s family kill a liquor store owner? They sold the dangerous drugs to my step-mother.
All I'm trying to do is give Joe Sipack the same rights and privileges that local mafioso has....
Fight the urge to be such a statist...
I'm sorry to see anyone die from alcohol, but at some point, personal responsibility has to come into play.
The disconnect I’m seeing is that under your proposal, the mafia/injured party would allow them to kill the dealers of illicit drugs even if the said illicit drugs were made legal. Yet the crux of your argument against killing liquor store owners is that alcohol is legal. Why would killing someone over one legal substance be more justified than another?
And then you use the personal responsibility excuse with alcohol. Does personal responsibility only comes into play with a legal product?
What exactly is the major difference between an alcoholic who dies of an overdose (of of long term complications from their alcohol abuse) than a heroin addict who dies of an overdose?
In return, there's less of a chance that someone is willing to try to get them hooked, I 'm referring to dealers, even light weight dealers who are only selling enough to support their own habit.
While the doper crowd isn't too bright, they do know there is certain penalties involved with selling to someone who is connected......
Hence they avoid it.
I would like to see everyday citizens have the authority to remove with extreme prejudice those who would try to get their family hooked on dope.
You'd kill a snake about to strike your child? yes?
Obviously, someone would make an error now and then, for which they'd face full penalty.
Again, I'm having too much fun living my own life to worry about anyone having a bit of fun doing dope. But when these losers try to get some sweet young thing hooked so they can kick back and live off her ....
I simply believe it's wrong. You bring alcohol into the picture?
I'll let someone else worry about that..... I got my hands full.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.