Replies

That is where I differ... Hard drugs are not everywhere... they are really just in the fringes. Your coworkers may be getting stoned, but I would be willing to bet they are not on meth. Nor cocaine derivatives or heroin. Because they are professional people and it just isn't done. Would that change if it were legal? - Maybe, some would try it if it felt more legitimate because it was legal. And the stuff is highly addictive. When we felt experimental, the stuff wasn't around, or was so expensive that is couldn't be addicting to a normal kid.

I don't know what the answer is. I know it is hard to stop people from doing things that sound fun to do. And meth creation as an illegal substance is actually putting my hobby at risk, because the mobile meth labs are being found in the public forests, and the cheapest answer to that is gates on the roads in. But I don't want a neighbor making it at home either, and would hate to NOT have the law on my side if they were. People explode alot making that crap.

Would the drug war make you crazy if pot were not a part of it?

The operative question here is: Do we want to control what people do, or do we want to control the effects on society stemming from what people do?

If someone is driving under the influence of anything, that's a problem. Or flying a plane, or driving a backhoe, or installing my cable. If someone is at home, whacked out on model glue, do I really care? Not really. If it eats his/her brain and makes them marketable as nothing but a ditch digger? Still not sure that I care. The world needs ditches from time to time, too.

To be honest, it's the people driving under the influence of stupidity that I've seen to be the biggest threat. Unfortunately we don't yet have a breath-test for that yet.

If someone commits a crime or otherwise affects someone else's life, then that can be a cause of action against them. Why not settle for that?

I'm not sure I buy the whole "stigma" argument. It's interesting, but let's apply it to a closer case: Would you feel better about someone as, say, a potential mate because they don't do drugs even when they are legal and available, or when they simply don't use them because they are illegal?

If they live in Nevada and avail themselves of prostitutes (which is legal there) does that make them somewhat more moral than someone who does it elsewhere?

Hmmm...