Whilst I personally favour and understand your point, if you don't see the other side of the argument then you're just as ignorant as those who adopt these laws blindly. I'm not talking about steroids by the way as they have limited (if any) effect psychologically on the mainstream.
You're assuming I don't know the couterarguments. I've heard ALL of the counter arguments to legalization of illegal drugs and I can refute them all.
Given that the general population are somewhat "lacking in control" illegality surely provides a (crude) way of regulating drug use especially in public where such use may be damaging on other people's lives.
You're making the false assumption these drugs would damage people's lives.
You're also assuming that making the drugs legal would increase the rate of use while the evidence shows contrary.
When Marijuana use was decriminalized in the Netherlands the rate of use didn't increase that much. As a matter of a fact the rate of use among teenagers in the Netherlands is BELOW that of teenagers in the united states.
You're also assuming that the "war on drugs" itself doesn't ruin people's lives or create even more crime when this is also false.
I'm not saying that it would be worse without such government control or that there are not better options, just that its something to ponder - having known quite a few people who have been seriously addicted to marijuana. And yes, whilst they have not died they have surely become underachieving deadshits (and in two cases there has been serious mental degradation).
You've known no one who has ever been "Addicted" to marijuana in the medical sense. Marijuana isn't phsiologically addictive. In medicine "Addictive" is defined as there being a physical withdrawl from the drug you are addicted to. This isn't the case with marijuana.
People may like to smoke marijuana and then do it often,But this isn't addiction. They could stop anytime they wanted without any withdrawls.
Most studies showing marijuana has withdrawl symptoms are "junk science" by universities funded by the govt to come to a particular conclusion no matter what. This isn't real science.
Not that it even matters if Marijuana is addictive or not. Alcohol is also addictive and that's a proven fact. Yet Alcohol is Legal. Marijuana doesn't kill,Never has,Never can. Alcohol kills thousands of people a year in the U.S. alone..Yet it's legal.
quote author=rocket link=topic=59542.msg902589#msg902589 date=1142307393]I say this because I perceive that alcohol is the most damaging substance being abused and it causes a huge amount of trouble because of the fact that its socially acceptable, freely available, unregulated and legal to consume.
At the end of the day there is no right or wrong answer to this question. People will die, have their lives ruined either way. It seems unclear to me which side of the argument would produce the lesser injustices though
[/quote]
Marijuana itself has never killed a single person in recorded medical History. It just isn't toxic enough to cause an overdose or a death. Yet Alcohol killed over 85,000 in 2000 alone.
Compairing Marijuana to Alcohol is just stupid.
The fact of the matter is simple...Decriminalizing Marijuana might cause a slight increase in the number of vehicle wrecks a year..WoW! Keeping it illegal means we're spending BILLIONS upon BILLIONS a year fighting growers and users and even more Billions locking them up in Prisons and keeping them there. 1 single individual costs the Tax payers thousands of dollars a year to imprison. We Imprison THOUSANDS of marijuana growers,dealers and users a year.
Not even mentioning the entire Civil Liberties argument that everyone individual has the right to put whatever substance he wants into his own Body...The Govt has no right to say what you can or can't put into your own body.
It's funny that conservatives argue for "Small government" and "More civil liberties" yet they are always the one's who push the "anti-drug" bills into law and shout "Marijuana is deadly,Think of the children! More govt control!" when it comes down to it.
