Ron Paul on drugs.

[Auxous]

I want to make clear--that I understand where Ron Paul is coming from--BUT--we cannot just legalize all illicit drugs without a clear a present danger to the youth of this country.

Ron Paul would leave that decision up to the individual states and I highly doubt any state would legalize all drugs.

We simply would not see complete legalization of all drugs under a Ron Paul presidency. Heck, we probably wouldn't even see complete decriminalization.

 

[oreo]

I want to make clear--that I understand where Ron Paul is coming from--BUT--we cannot just legalize all illicit drugs without a clear a present danger to the youth of this country.

Ron Paul would leave that decision up to the individual states and I highly doubt any state would legalize all drugs.

We simply would not see complete legalization of all drugs under a Ron Paul presidency. Heck, we probably wouldn't even see complete decriminalization.

Now you have my attention. This should be a STATE issue--as are the 16 states that have passed some kind of medical marijuana legislation.

I do want more power to go to the States--and I want whatever decision they make regarding education--health care--and social issues to be respected by the Federal Government.

You're right there is no state that is going to legalize hard core drugs--but they have the opportunity to address locally what their drug problems are--without the intervention of the Federal Government--who manages to screw EVERYTHING up.

 

[Auxous]

You're right there is no state that is going to legalize hard core drugs--but they have the opportunity to address locally what their drug problems are--without the intervention of the Federal Government--who manages to screw EVERYTHING up.

That is what states would do. Some would still treat drug use as a criminal problem while others will treat it as a health issue concern. Some states will have more lax laws regarding drug use than others.

However, no state would completely legalize them and there would not be complete legalization under a Paul administration.

 

[Political Junky]

The WAR on Drugs is a colossal failure. The Netherlands and Portugal have pretty much legalized pot, resulting in fewer problems.

 

[geauxtohell]

While I know that alcohol is probably the MOST lethal legal drug out there--you have to be realistic at the same time. Marijuana doesn't kill anyone--there has NEVER been an incident of anyone showing up in an emergency room for an overdose of it. Because it is an organic plant. Millions of Americans are closet smokers.

No. But people certainly show up in the ER because of MJ. I saw someone the other day and this:

Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Was on the differential. In addition, we are seeing a lot of people with pneumothorax:

Pneumothorax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Associated with smoking THC. It's not this wonderfully benign drug that the rabidly pro-legalization crowd claims it is (and don't get me started on the bullshit claims it cures cancer).

Like any foreign substance people ingest, it has the potential to harm the body. What it is not is physiologically addictive. For that reason, I think it should be legal.

Compare that to the alcohol related incidents of violence and deaths--- Your brain has been flooded with 60 years of non-sense propaganda regarding marijuana--bought an paid for by the pharmacutical industry in this country.

Marijuana is one of the most harmless drugs out there--and does less damage than over the counter aspirin. It has turned into MEXICO's--BLOOD DIAMOND---where 28,000 Mexican militia--US DEA agents--Mexican police--drug lords and innocent civilians--including US citizens have been killed in the cross-fire--over the last 8 years. Mexico is smuggleing in over 1 million tons of it a year to the United States--indicating that there are millions of Americans that use it.

Now you can choose to continue to fill the pockets of violent Mexican drug lords--or you can choose to legalize it--regulate it--and tax it like alcohol.

Because we have had 60 years of prohibition--1 trillion tax payer dollars wasted--that has proven that prohibition on Marijuana has not worked--nor will it ever work.

I think Marijuana should be fully legal. You must have missed my intro post. Skip the "medical MJ" crap and just make it legal. So you wasted bandwidth with about 90% of your post.

I just find the argument that the legalization crowd makes about how MJ is this 100% benign gift from God that also magically cures cancer and male pattern baldness to be ******* hysterical (and an insult to my intelligence).

It's arguable that aspirin is more dangerous than MJ. You can certainly OD from it, but to do so requires some effort (or a suicide attempt). On the other hand, it's pretty hard to argue that inhaling smoke everyday (which, let's be frank, is the way that the majority of the population uses the drug. Most people don't vaporize or make brownies) is a healthy lifestyle choice. Aspirin is also more useful than MJ. Between Morphine, Oxygen, Aspirin, and Nitrates (all routinely administered during a heart attack), Aspirin is the only one that has proven to save lives.

So it's a little silly to compare MJ, whose efficacy in the treatment of disease hasn't been proven, with pharmaceutical drugs whose efficacy has been proven and start talking about the evils of the pharmaceutical drugs.

Of course prescription drugs are dangerous. Hell, look at what Penicillin does to some people. They also provide medical benefit, which is why (in this country), you have to have a medical degree to prescribe the majority of them.

 

[Avorysuds]

Lets not forget he wants to make it legal for a business to say "no blacks allowed" as well.

Ron Paul is ******* nuts.

I heard he wants to make it legal for a biz to say "No whites allowed."

It would sem he's not racist but believes in freedom. Zona, why do you have to make RP seem racist... do you lack any other talking points?

You do know Obama went to a white hating church for like 20 years right?

 

[geauxtohell]

It is a much more benign than other legal recreational drugs. The DEA has known and has supressed the fact that THC suppresses cancerous tumors in lab rats since the mid 70's. More research is needed but being classified as a Class A narcotic the government has ruled that it has no medical value and real research in practically non-existant.

It is such a cash cow that legalization would hurt many people financially. In fact I think most people who strongly support the status quo have something to loose if it is ever made legal or have been convinced by someone who does to oppose it.

This is where I have a real problem with the legalization crowd. The DEA has suppressed the anti-oncogenic properties of MJ since the mid 70s? That's absurd. You do realize that they do medical research in other countries too, right? I am not religious, but I like that passage in the bible where Christ says: "If I didn't say it, the stones on the ground would scream it." Cancer is so terrible, that if there was some promising data about anything, even the big bad DEA couldn't keep it down. You have scientists going off shore to do embryonic stem cell research on the supposition that it will be the next best thing for crying out loud. Hell, now scientists are even trying to reprogram HIV so that it only targets cancerous cells as a form of treatment (which is brilliant, IMO).

Furthermore, their are about a million different type of cell lines in the body and any one of them can turn cancerous. Even fat cells can become a malignant tumor. Cancer is not a "one size fits all" pathology. That's why some cancers are more responsive to chemo, some to radiation, and some only to surgery. To make a generality that MJ will magically ablate all cancers in the body just sounds so ignorant.

I really think in people's zeal to legalize it, it's utility is overstated. That is what annoys me. I think it would be great for people on Chemo and HAART as an appetite stimulant. And what the hell is wrong with people simply wanting to get high on MJ?

Other than that, I think it should be legalized and I fully support more research on it (ironic that cocaine is deemed to have more medical use than MJ). If MJ proves to be a wonder drug, I will fully support using it for any medical indications. I just don't buy the conspiracy theories. It's an easy cop out.

 

[geauxtohell]

It's more that the pharmaceutical industry has suppressed all the good news coming out of the medical properties that marijuana has. And for good reason. Marijuana is something that can be grown in closets--and in backyards that is capable of wiping out 1/2 of your medicine cabinet.

I can think of several prescription drugs that could easily be replaced with marijuana. And any corporation would get the hee--bee-gees scared out of them over that. And YES law enforcement who like to pad their job security with marijuana busts. It's a lot harder to bust up a meth lab--where you know the people may be armed and violent--than some closet grower--that in all probability won't give law enforcement a hard time.

The pharmaceutical industry in this country is also the main reason why medical insurance rates are no longer affordable. Each and every week--they are "pushing" on the American public a new pill for such things like restless leg syndrome--dry eye syndrome--erectile dysfunction syndrome. You get a 10 second advertisement and then a 45 second warning of the side effects--which include: Sudden death--thoughts of suicide--weight gain--weight loss--joint pain--headaches--nausea--cramping--blindness--deafness--kidney--liver and heart damage--addiction--etc. etc. etc.

And yet people still get hysterical over a completely organic plant--Marijuana--that has yet sent anyone to the emergency room with an overdose--

What medications could MJ replace and why?

Secondly, I think direct marketing of pharmaceutical companies to patients is completely unethical. Who do you think those ads are targeting? Doctors? **** no. It's targeting patients. Contrary to popular belief, physicians are paid a commission for every pill they give a patient and most doctors try and keep people's drug list down to the lowest amount possible.

The drug companies know that if they target patients, the patients will bring it up in the next office visit.

 

[geauxtohell]

regulating items for purity and safety is a far cry from prohibiting them
just like with booze and smokes put a label on them let the citizen choose if he/she wants to use them . many things that are dangerous for us to use are NOT PROHIBITED
dont get the point about its alright for alcohol and cigarettes cus society has *absorbed the cost of abuse * what does that mean ?
if you smoke and drink you can obtain your **drug of choice *** legally why should a pot / cocain uses NOT have the same right?
i am a libertarian and proud of it

You can make a good argument that MDMA's (ecstasy) adverse effects are related to impurities. That can't be said for other drugs. Heroin doesn't get anymore pure than morphine, and that, my friend, is a dangerous drug that needs to be administered under the supervision of someone that knows what the hell they are doing. 10 mg of morphine will spike an opiate naive person. It won't touch a heroin abuser. Cocaine is also dangeorus (and disfiguring is you use it in excess). I see little use in legalizing opium and stimulants purely because people want to get high. I don't want to live in a "Brave New World".

What I mean about the "cost of abuse" is that alcohol and tobacco cost this country a ton of money. If we just discovered the joys of alcohol, there might be room for some debate on the matter. However, we are far beyond that. The cat is out of the bag.

I wasn't aware that getting high was a constitutional right that could be infringed.

 

[geauxtohell]

Sounds good to me, if heroin were legal, I would no more use it than I do now and it being illegal, cigarettes is legal but I don't smoke.

I don't need government to baby sit my personal decisions and choices.

Well I know that I for one only refrain from heroin because it's illegal. It's got NOTHING to do with having to stick a needle in my arm 5-10 times a day to avoid violent withdrawal and continue chasing one of the most powerful addictions known to man.

The first thing I, and probably everyone, would do if drugs were legalized is rush out to be the first in line to become a heroin addict. If it weren't for the government parenting us we'd all be addicts. Thank god for the DEA.

Addiction is only one of the many reasons heroin should be illegal. Sharing needles isn't exactly a sanitary practice and if we are going to legalize heroin, we should probably legalize narcan too. Just in case. The kiddies will all be having a good time down by the campfire ODing, catching hep c and administering Narcan to their buddies before they stop breathing and then watching the hilarity of a rapid opiate withdrawal.

It's great that we (who I am guessing are above a certain age) will say "I would never try that shit if it were legal"). How much stupid shit did you do when you were 18 that you would never do now?

Why would we want to facilitate that in any way simply so you guys can thump your chest about the esoterics of being libertarians?

 

[geauxtohell]

Here's another example. The state of Florida has become the oxycotton capital of the US--where doctors regularly write out prescriptions for ANYONE seeking pain pills. On a doc this weekend--drug gangs are sending people into Florida--and they gather up around 2000 pills--and then take it back to Mass. to sell. Oxycotton is a schedule 2 drug--Marijuana is still a schedule 1 drug. In the documentary--kids were actually getting addicted and dying from Oxycotten. Yet--the person who gets caught selling it--because it is a schedule 2 drug--would do much less time in a federal prison that some guy selling marijuana on the street--that didn't kill anyone.

Again--I am not for legalizing all drugs. The hard core drugs are cut with chemicals and that's what makes them addictive and that's what kills people. Marijuana is not within this group--and shouldn't be treated as such.

At least you are consistent. Oxycotin is a synthetic opiate in the same family as heroin and morphine.

Also, contrary to popular belief, Drs. don't hand out narcotics to anyone seeking drugs. The narcotic pain pill problem in this country is well recognized by the medical community. Drs. who are loose with their Rx pad get nuked and the DEA tracks narcotic prescriptions and (attempts) to prosecute offenders on both side of the prescription pad.

Drs. are only going to get more jaded as the young crowd comes up through medical school and develops a deep hatred of narcotic pain pills and the junkies that flood the hospital with their bullshit malingering to get them and waste our time and put other people's health in jeopardy.

 

[JohnA]

regulating items for purity and safety is a far cry from prohibiting them
just like with booze and smokes put a label on them let the citizen choose if he/she wants to use them . many things that are dangerous for us to use are NOT PROHIBITED
dont get the point about its alright for alcohol and cigarettes cus society has *absorbed the cost of abuse * what does that mean ?
if you smoke and drink you can obtain your **drug of choice *** legally why should a pot / cocain uses NOT have the same right?
i am a libertarian and proud of it

You can make a good argument that MDMA's (ecstasy) adverse effects are related to impurities. That can't be said for other drugs. Heroin doesn't get anymore pure than morphine, and that, my friend, is a dangerous drug that needs to be administered under the supervision of someone that knows what the hell they are doing. 10 mg of morphine will spike an opiate naive person. It won't touch a heroin abuser. Cocaine is also dangeorus (and disfiguring is you use it in excess). I see little use in legalizing opium and stimulants purely because people want to get high. I don't want to live in a "Brave New World".

What I mean about the "cost of abuse" is that alcohol and tobacco cost this country a ton of money. If we just discovered the joys of alcohol, there might be room for some debate on the matter. However, we are far beyond that. The cat is out of the bag.

I wasn't aware that getting high was a constitutional right that could be infringed.

So you are saying the cats of of the bag with alcohol but we have not yet discovered the joys of others drugs
What rock have you been hiding under
the fact is the market for other drugs pot etc is larger then the market for alcohol its just not under the govt control hence the *drug wars *
never implied it was a right that could not be infringed . we do thou with the declaration of independence have the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness .

 

[Kuros]

I want to make clear--that I understand where Ron Paul is coming from--BUT--we cannot just legalize all illicit drugs without a clear a present danger to the youth of this country.

Ron Paul would leave that decision up to the individual states and I highly doubt any state would legalize all drugs.

We simply would not see complete legalization of all drugs under a Ron Paul presidency. Heck, we probably wouldn't even see complete decriminalization.

Now you have my attention. This should be a STATE issue--as are the 16 states that have passed some kind of medical marijuana legislation.

I do want more power to go to the States--and I want whatever decision they make regarding education--health care--and social issues to be respected by the Federal Government.

You're right there is no state that is going to legalize hard core drugs--but they have the opportunity to address locally what their drug problems are--without the intervention of the Federal Government--who manages to screw EVERYTHING up.

Perhaps it took 5 pages, but we finally got to the nub of the issue. The Feds have no business criminalizing drugs. Criminal codes are traditionally a state prerogative. Nationalism has so overrun Federalism in this country at this point that even right-wingers like Scalia are willing to turn their backs on their Federalist mantras to service their policy goals of anti-drug-user authoritarianism.

More and more policy needs to be turned over to the States. Its the best and ORIGINAL solution to the great diversity in this country. Sure, some policies are properly Federal policies, like immigration and patent law, anything specifically enumerated. But education, criminal law, family law, estate law, and others are traditionally governed on the state level.

Only Ron Paul and Gary Johnson seem to recognize this.

 

[Texanmike]

regulating items for purity and safety is a far cry from prohibiting them
just like with booze and smokes put a label on them let the citizen choose if he/she wants to use them . many things that are dangerous for us to use are NOT PROHIBITED
dont get the point about its alright for alcohol and cigarettes cus society has *absorbed the cost of abuse * what does that mean ?
if you smoke and drink you can obtain your **drug of choice *** legally why should a pot / cocain uses NOT have the same right?
i am a libertarian and proud of it

You can make a good argument that MDMA's (ecstasy) adverse effects are related to impurities. That can't be said for other drugs. Heroin doesn't get anymore pure than morphine, and that, my friend, is a dangerous drug that needs to be administered under the supervision of someone that knows what the hell they are doing. 10 mg of morphine will spike an opiate naive person. It won't touch a heroin abuser. Cocaine is also dangeorus (and disfiguring is you use it in excess). I see little use in legalizing opium and stimulants purely because people want to get high. I don't want to live in a "Brave New World".

What I mean about the "cost of abuse" is that alcohol and tobacco cost this country a ton of money. If we just discovered the joys of alcohol, there might be room for some debate on the matter. However, we are far beyond that. The cat is out of the bag.

I wasn't aware that getting high was a constitutional right that could be infringed.

Well I know that I for one only refrain from heroin because it's illegal. It's got NOTHING to do with having to stick a needle in my arm 5-10 times a day to avoid violent withdrawal and continue chasing one of the most powerful addictions known to man.

The first thing I, and probably everyone, would do if drugs were legalized is rush out to be the first in line to become a heroin addict. If it weren't for the government parenting us we'd all be addicts. Thank god for the DEA.

Addiction is only one of the many reasons heroin should be illegal. Sharing needles isn't exactly a sanitary practice and if we are going to legalize heroin, we should probably legalize narcan too. Just in case. The kiddies will all be having a good time down by the campfire ODing, catching hep c and administering Narcan to their buddies before they stop breathing and then watching the hilarity of a rapid opiate withdrawal.

It's great that we (who I am guessing are above a certain age) will say "I would never try that shit if it were legal"). How much stupid shit did you do when you were 18 that you would never do now?

Why would we want to facilitate that in any way simply so you guys can thump your chest about the esoterics of being libertarians?

Here's another example. The state of Florida has become the oxycotton capital of the US--where doctors regularly write out prescriptions for ANYONE seeking pain pills. On a doc this weekend--drug gangs are sending people into Florida--and they gather up around 2000 pills--and then take it back to Mass. to sell. Oxycotton is a schedule 2 drug--Marijuana is still a schedule 1 drug. In the documentary--kids were actually getting addicted and dying from Oxycotten. Yet--the person who gets caught selling it--because it is a schedule 2 drug--would do much less time in a federal prison that some guy selling marijuana on the street--that didn't kill anyone.

Again--I am not for legalizing all drugs. The hard core drugs are cut with chemicals and that's what makes them addictive and that's what kills people. Marijuana is not within this group--and shouldn't be treated as such.

At least you are consistent. Oxycotin is a synthetic opiate in the same family as heroin and morphine.

Also, contrary to popular belief, Drs. don't hand out narcotics to anyone seeking drugs. The narcotic pain pill problem in this country is well recognized by the medical community. Drs. who are loose with their Rx pad get nuked and the DEA tracks narcotic prescriptions and (attempts) to prosecute offenders on both side of the prescription pad.

Drs. are only going to get more jaded as the young crowd comes up through medical school and develops a deep hatred of narcotic pain pills and the junkies that flood the hospital with their bullshit malingering to get them and waste our time and put other people's health in jeopardy.

I still have yet to see a compelling argument for why it should be illegal for me to ingest anything. All of you make very compelling arguments for why I should not ingest it but there is no reason why you should have the authority over me to tell me I can't. I understand the risk and I choose not to do it, even if it were legal. I would move to a state where it was illegal (and I think most sane people would too) but I wouldn't prohibit someone in another state from doing it.

Mike

 

[dblack]

I still have yet to see a compelling argument for why it should be illegal for me to ingest anything. All of you make very compelling arguments for why I should not ingest it but there is no reason why you should have the authority over me to tell me I can't. I understand the risk and I choose not to do it, even if it were legal. I would move to a state where it was illegal (and I think most sane people would too) but I wouldn't prohibit someone in another state from doing it.

That's really the crux of the whole argument. This is classic nanny-state government - ie the government protecting us from our own presumed lack of judgement. Laws that tell us we can't act crazy and threaten other people's safety have merit, but that's not what drug laws are about.

 

[geauxtohell]

regulating items for purity and safety is a far cry from prohibiting them
just like with booze and smokes put a label on them let the citizen choose if he/she wants to use them . many things that are dangerous for us to use are NOT PROHIBITED
dont get the point about its alright for alcohol and cigarettes cus society has *absorbed the cost of abuse * what does that mean ?
if you smoke and drink you can obtain your **drug of choice *** legally why should a pot / cocain uses NOT have the same right?
i am a libertarian and proud of it

You can make a good argument that MDMA's (ecstasy) adverse effects are related to impurities. That can't be said for other drugs. Heroin doesn't get anymore pure than morphine, and that, my friend, is a dangerous drug that needs to be administered under the supervision of someone that knows what the hell they are doing. 10 mg of morphine will spike an opiate naive person. It won't touch a heroin abuser. Cocaine is also dangeorus (and disfiguring is you use it in excess). I see little use in legalizing opium and stimulants purely because people want to get high. I don't want to live in a "Brave New World".

What I mean about the "cost of abuse" is that alcohol and tobacco cost this country a ton of money. If we just discovered the joys of alcohol, there might be room for some debate on the matter. However, we are far beyond that. The cat is out of the bag.

I wasn't aware that getting high was a constitutional right that could be infringed.

So you are saying the cats of of the bag with alcohol but we have not yet discovered the joys of others drugs
What rock have you been hiding under
the fact is the market for other drugs pot etc is larger then the market for alcohol its just not under the govt control hence the *drug wars *
never implied it was a right that could not be infringed . we do thou with the declaration of independence have the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness .

First off, let's correct something before someone else nukes you on it. The Declaration of Independence is a nice historical document where we told King George to **** off. It's not, nor has it ever been, the law of the land. It has absolutely no legal binding and pseudo-Lockian niceties like the vague "pursuit of happiness" (ever wonder why it's not actually what Locke wrote: "Life, liberty, and property?) are completely irrelevant when we are talking about the law. The Supreme Court has yet to hear a case for claims of violation of the Declaration of Independence.

Saying the "market is larger" is somewhat misleading. More people use alcohol then use illicit drugs. The revenue might be higher in the narcotics business, but that is only because illegality has driven up the price of narcotics far beyond their true market value. That unto itself is not a convincing reason for legalization either.

I am being pragmatic about this. Alcohol will always be with us and so will tobacco, because they were in wide use for recreational purposes long before this country was founded. I also have no problem with people simply wanted to get "altered" and am all for legalizing MJ for that reason alone. I would also support legalizing MDMA for medicinal use as studies have shown that it is safe when controlled and has real benefit for people suffering from PTSD.

I am not for legalizing drugs that are highly addictive, require IV administration, and can be lethal.

I see minimal benefit to society in legalizing amphetamines, cocaine/crack, and opiates. Will it **** over the drug lords? Sure. So what? At some point, we have to acknowledge that criminality is always gong to be with us and we can't start simply legalizing everything as a result. Other than that, the only argument I see is shrouded in esoteric libertarian bullshit (no offense). It's great that your political belief system leads you to think that people should be able to ingest/inject whatever the hell they want too since it is their body. I just disagree that that sentiment is good for our society at large. I also don't want to see the incidence of hepatitis C among the 18-25 year old demographic skyrocket.

Some of these drugs are dangerous, and I can only assume you guys have no clue just how dangerous they are. Every year, teens die from alcohol related incidents. Most are trauma (motor vehicle collisions), but a much smaller percentage are from acute overdose. It's hard to OD on alcohol, but it can be done. It's easy to OD on opiates.

So, if you want little Sally at the high school field party trying to estimate the safe dose of heroin to stick in her arm under the guidance of some sketchy 35 year old junkie who brought their *now* perfectly legal heroin and hepatitis covered ******* needle to a high school party in the hopes that they could score some ass by bringing the drugs, then by all means.

But I'll continue to think you are ******* stupid for believing that.

Again, I am evoking some hyperbole, but not simply to offend. I am willing to bet you've never seen someone OD or withdrawal from that shit. I am willing to bet you've never seen a cocaine induced heart attack in a 20 something year old. I am willing to bet you've never watched the painfully slow and miserable death of someone with Hep C and end stage liver failure.

 

[geauxtohell]

I still have yet to see a compelling argument for why it should be illegal for me to ingest anything. All of you make very compelling arguments for why I should not ingest it but there is no reason why you should have the authority over me to tell me I can't. I understand the risk and I choose not to do it, even if it were legal. I would move to a state where it was illegal (and I think most sane people would too) but I wouldn't prohibit someone in another state from doing it.

That's really the crux of the whole argument. This is classic nanny-state government - ie the government protecting us from our own presumed lack of judgement. Laws that tell us we can't act crazy and threaten other people's safety have merit, but that's not what drug laws are about.

Because it's not just you two.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4016701-post76.html

That's my argument against legalizing certain drugs.

I'll admit it's a "think of the children" argument, but that's relevant. Please spare me the "If parents raise their kids right, they won't try these drugs!" How many kids who are properly raised by loving families experiment with alcohol? Why would you want to add cocaine and heroin to that spectrum?

I would argue that illegality adds a stigma that does work as a deterrence. Especially for a certain age group.

I am all for reforming our idiotic drug laws and codes and for legalizing benign substances like MJ. However, heroin, amphetamines, and cocaine?

Get real.

Holy hell. Bullemia and anorexia are big enough problems among teenage women and you want to make amphetamines more available?

 

[dblack]

That's my argument against legalizing certain drugs.

I'll admit it's a "think of the children" argument, but that's relevant...

I suspect it's more than 'think of the children'. For the sake of clarity, indulge me in a 'thought experiment'. If the protection of children weren't an issue at all - if there was some rock solid way to keep dangerous drugs away from kids - would you still argue for prohibition?

 

[geauxtohell]

That's my argument against legalizing certain drugs.

I'll admit it's a "think of the children" argument, but that's relevant...

I suspect it's more than 'think of the children'. For the sake of clarity, indulge me in a 'thought experiment'. If the protection of children weren't an issue at all - if there was some rock solid way to keep dangerous drugs away from kids - would you still argue for prohibition?

If the legal age were set to 30. I think the average 30 year old has the gray matter to know it's a bad idea to inject themselves with a syringe full of smack and if they don't, then I have no problem with social Darwinism in that regard.

By 30, you should know better.

 

[dblack]

If the legal age were set to 30. I think the average 30 year old has the gray matter to know it's a bad idea to inject themselves with a syringe full of smack and if they don't, then I have no problem with social Darwinism in that regard.

By 30, you should know better.

30?? really? ok, but then after that (assuming our little fiction of a foolproof way to keep it away from them until then) you'd be ok with people doing whatever drugs they wanted?

I wasn't really trying to 'entrap' you or anything. But my experience has been that most people in favor of prohibition are worried about more than just the children. They feel that, essentially, government should treat all of us as children - deciding what's best for us and protecting from our own poor judgement. And I can't really square that with a free society.