The recent incident involving Michael Phelps getting caught smoking pot has caused the age long debate to rear its head again on whether or not we should legalize or at least decriminalize our drug laws. The idea in attacking the drug laws is that people should be free to make their own decisions. The problem with that line of reasoning is that you would never be able to draw the line on establishing any law. Everything would have to be legal, including armed robbery, murder, assault, etc. In essence, it would be anarchy. [Shreveport Times]
Stopthedrugwar replies succinctly:
We want to legalize marijuana, but not murder. Does that make sense? Armed robbery, etc. would still be illegal. No one will ever try to legalize violent crime, so shut up and stop worrying about that.
Then the same idiot claims that the rise of pot cafés in Amsterdam proves that legalisation increases use, ignoring the fact that, per capita, 3-4 times FEWER Dutch smoke cannabis than people in the US. Perhaps the rise in pot cafés is due to refugee tokers from prohibitionist countries enjoying a relaxing holiday, classic "balloon effect".
If the drug effort were failing there would be no violence," a senior U.S. official said Wednesday. There is violence "because these guys are flailing. We're taking these guys out. The worst thing you could do is stop now.
He's talking about the mass murder in Mexico as drug cartels fight for massive profits from the illicit US market (see post below).
If success = mass murder does it not occur to these people that the cure is worse than the problem?
If success = mass murder does it not occur to these people that the cure is worse than the problem?
These prohibitionists also say higher prices (and therefore profits) generated by the War are a sign of success. What would failure look like again?
3 comments:
Talking about prohibition, being deceitful and ridiculous arguments, have you seen Herschel Baker's comments on The Australian Drug Blog?
He has the logical capabilities of a primary school student.
If our society is so advanced, how do the nutters who dictate our drug laws not get pulled up for ignoring basic facts, science and logic? Surely in this era of human advancement, we expect our leaders to set an example? Instead we are fed lies and fairy tales that somehow get a green light from the media and general public.
How many people have to die before the lies stop?
It's all about mindsets, Terry. They have spent decades establishing a public belief that drugs are evil and criminal prosecution is the way to stamp them out. Once people have a "mindset" it is amazing how much evidence and logic they will ignore.
These days the spin is clever, too, amplifying the risks while never putting them into a context that shows how minor they really are... and NEVER talking about the benefits. Hence my repeated challenge asking why climbing the mountain K2 is legal with its 27% death rate and cannabis is illegal with effectively a zero death rate. A few well intentioned conservatives have tried to tackle this one but their arguments boil down to supporting the status quo because it's the status quo... anathema to a child of the '60s like me!
Another argument that Gary Christian of DFA has repeated is that not many people climb K2 and if lots did someone would ban it. I counter each time saying that even fewer people fly under the harbour bridge but it's still illegal. Mr Christian ignores that one, typically.
The information here is great. I will invite my friends here.
Thanks
Post a Comment