<p>I personally think ALL drugs should be legal, due to pure logistics, and moral reasons. Either I have sovereignty over my individual, or the state does. As it stands right now, the state has sovereignty over my body by dictating what I am and am not allowed to put in my body. I don't like that.</p>
<p>And please don't delete this mods for being political, since it's really not. It's discussing an issue that is 100% relevant to our day to day lives.</p>
<p>It has a rationalization for the legalization of all drugs, and I find it to be very logical in all honesty, and I feel that even those who are against drugs would also find his reasoning logical. One important point he made is that drugs are dangerous, so we declare that a single death is too many and totally outlaw them. But we don’t treat any other danger in this way, not driving, not using alcohol or tobacco. He says “we outlaw drugs so we won’t have to take responsibility for the harm that they do,” since those hurt by drugs are criminals and therefore people we don’t have to care about.</p>
<p>It’s true that I do use a variety of drugs and would like them to be legal for personal reasons, yes. However, I think that this country would be safer if drugs were legalized (if that doesn’t make sense, please try reading the article, I think it has a very good explanation).</p>
<p>Of course drugs should be legalized. The War on Drugs is one of many absolutely *****ty programs that are useless, inefficient, and stupid. Our society criminalizes drugs and the possession/selling of drugs because they kill, when in fact things like alcohol, fast food, and pills kill us just as much.</p>
<p>The money we could save from getting rid of school drug programs (which even police admit do not work), anti-drug trafficking programs, unnecessary prisoners who are jailed for drugs, etc. is enormous, and there are many other ways to try to address the issue of keeping your body healthy using that money, like sending every kid to quality educational programs.</p>
<p>It makes no sense, and I do believe that in the future we will eventually legalize drugs. It’s only natural that it happens. We as a country prolong these things way too much. Freedom, equality, suffrage, etc. were all eventually granted. Soon to follow are gay marriage and drug legalization.</p>
<p>I believe that government should not have a say in what we choose to do to ourselves or our bodies. If people want to hurt themselves, I don’t think it’s the government’s place to stop them. I also believe that legalization would help our country’s economy and increase safety.</p>
<p>That being said, what gives me pause is that people doing drugs are not just dangerous to themselves. They also have the potential to harm others.</p>
<p>However, considering people are allowed to have guns, to drink alcohol, to drive, and to do a number of other things which can harm others, I don’t see the rationalize for drugs being illegal.</p>
<p>I do have a few qualms, but on the whole I am very pro-legalization. And it’s not even because I’m using them (which I’m not).</p>
<p>One of my favorite arguments the pro-drug war D.A.R.E. crowd uses to sidestep the medical marijuana problem (how can you deny law-abiding citizens medicine?), by saying there is marinol, a prescription, man-made, barely tested synthesized THC that you can buy from a pharmacy.</p>
<p>Lolwut.</p>
<p>Do they really expect us to believe that artificial versions of the natural, used-by-humans-for-centuries substance is BETTER for us? And that we should be EXPECTED to buy it from them at a probably ridiculous cost instead of growing it or something for free? People that grew up during the marijuana scare are brainwashed as anything.</p>
<p>And I don’t even use drugs, but damn it it should be my choice, not the nanny state’s. Libertarianism ftw.</p>
<p>Actually, as someone without a strong opinion on this issue, I found that his reasoning relies strongly on a distortion of the arguments against legalization. The other main support he uses is Prohibition, which obviously is an interesting case study but hardly proves any historical trend. Frankly, any really convincing argument in favor of drug legalization has to begin and end with a sober comparison of the involvement of organized crime in alcohol in the 20’s and its involvement in drugs now. But that page doesn’t really do that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is one example of a distortion. Who declared that a single death is too many? Does it really make sense to compare recreational drugs to cars? Are there not other dangerous things that are illegal?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And this is an example of an unsupported opinion that he offers.</p>
<p>^ What exactly is different, at all, about alcohol prohibition versus marijuana/heroin/etc prohibition? It’s all very simple.</p>
<p>Alcohol had demand.
Nanny state outlawed it.
Alcohol still had demand.
There was money to be made in alcohol as a result.
Al Capone & Friends came in to supply this demand
Thousands died.
People stopped being stupid and controlling human nature, and legalized it</p>
<p>Now, marijuana.
Marijuana has demand.
Nanny state outlawed it
Marijuana still has demand
There are billions to be made in the cannabis business
Mexican Cartels & Friends came to supply this demand
Tens of thousands died, border cities are ruined, and Latin American countries are falling apart
People are still to stupid to overcome their PSA and D.A.R.E. brainwashing and realize people should have the freedom to do what they wish with their lives, not what YOU want them to do with their lives</p>
<p>There are too many stupid people to allow the legalization of drugs. The bestiality argument is still valid, though. Why should the government have a say in what I put inside an animal’s body? It’s all natural, since people have been doing it since the Middle Ages.</p>
<p>The individual should have ultimate liberty where it does not infringe upon the rights of others. Marijuana? Go at it. Heroin? Destructive to society. One of the stated goals for our government is to promote the general welfare; allowing drugs such as heroin and cocaine to flow freely is counter-intuitive to that goal.</p>
<p>
1.) Swords are from the middle ages; are they all natural?
2.) Murder and rape are also actions that have some “natural” analog; should they be legal?
3.) Animals have some level of consciousness, albeit less than humans. Therefore, they should have a right to protection from torture.
4.) You sick ■■■■■■■, I’m calling the police on your ass.
5.) Go see a donkey show, pervert.
6.) [Don’t</a> screw your pets.](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWPfhpHCLDM]Don’t”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWPfhpHCLDM)</p>
<p>The government has a legitimate function to protect citizens and their property from harm caused by others; aggressors should be made to compensate their victims as much as possible.
A victimless crime is a contradiction. Since people own their bodies, they should be able to do anything they want with them as long as they do not harm someone else. Vice laws, like drug use, should be decriminalized because there is no victim as long as all parties consent to the actions.</p>
<p>See what happens to schools when you declare that it’s legal to buy any type of drug, not just marijuana. Also, let’s see what happens to the world when you let leaders like hitler and saddam hussein create nuclear bombs. You say it’s perfectly fine? So naive lol</p>
<p>The person who was arguing for bestiality… ROFL didn’t know liberalism would reach that line</p>
<p>No leader/country should have nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>So far, there’s only one country that has proven it will use nuclear weapons, and they happen to be the ones deciding who should and should not have them.</p>
You got your ox kicked on the last thread, quit screwing around, lassie.</p>
<p>
I do not begrudge someone who kills an animal to survive, as I do not begrudge a non-human animal who kills another animal (including a human) to survive.</p>