Legal to use. Illegal to sell.
Yes
No
Legal to use. Illegal to sell.
Staying away from General.
They did ban alcohol at one point, which opened up a sect of organized crime. What I'm saying is that the government shouldn't be banning so called (recreational) drugs and starting wars on illegal substances. Two recreational drugs are deadly, and the government appointed Surgeon general has a warning on cigarettes that they can cause cancer, yet that doesn't stop people. It's a joke really.
I don't think everything will stop either way.
Banning a substance may open black markets, but it will probably lessen the amount of the substance people use.
So anyway, in that light of events, maybe they should do nothing. Why allow it if it won't help anything? I will probably be the same story, or worse, even if allowed.
Not disallowed by default. Disallowed if it brings greater stability and benefits as a whole (disallowing theft brings greater stability and benefits to the whole).
But my question is: why allow it? What good will it do? Aside from more freedom, that is. Freedom is important, but allowing it can bring many disadvantages. So my question is: is it worth it? Will it have a more negative effect on the whole that negates the advantage of more freedom?
Elysia, why do you keep arguing this? You have been repeating the same stuff over and over again. And so far, have not been able to come up with a good reason why to ban it. As for why to allow it, the same reasons have been repeated by a lot of people here already:Originally Posted by Elysia
>> It causes less harm than many legal drugs.
>> Quality controls can be enforced
>> Criminals will lose one of their main sources of income
>> There would be less violence
>> It saves money on policing
>> It saves money in court costs
>> It means there will be less people in jail; so governments can actually keep dangerous criminals locked up.
>> Money can be made from the government by taxing it
As you admitted before you dont even know what you are talking about, so it seems you are in not much of a position to make judgements here:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Yet you seem to have no good arguments why it should be allowed.
And I already stated that it could be allowed in allowed environments such as hospitals, but not to public.
This is good if kept within a limited numbers of areas such as hospitals.>> It causes less harm than many legal drugs.
>> Quality controls can be enforced
Who says they won't just sell them legally? And who says they won't cheat with taxes? You cannot claim they will lose their income. As hackers adapt, so will these criminals. They aren't just small fishes.>> Criminals will lose one of their main sources of income
When anyone can get their hands on it? I don't believe so. There will be more, if anything.>> There would be less violence
Ah, right. But where does the money go instead then?>> It saves money on policing
>> It saves money in court costs
>> It means there will be less people in jail; so governments can actually keep dangerous criminals locked up.
>> Money can be made from the government by taxing it
They will flow elsewhere, such as more hospital accidents, more people whose mind will become unstable.
Not to mention that because the public has it, all of these will increase exponentially. So more money needs to be routed to these and other key areas, whereas they wouldn't need to be if they weren't allowed to public.
I don't buy that argument either.
I can resonate logic.As you admitted before you dont even know what you are talking about, so it seems you are in not much of a position to make judgements here:
Allowing it will have a bigger negative impact on the society. Whether this can be offset from the benefits it brings is the big question.
I don't get why you think a thriving underground economy is stable for society. I explained to you that it simply puts a significant strain on law enforcement because the only place for these people to go is jail or rehab. I just don't see where your faith in these institutions come from, you'll have to explain it. Sure, the DEA busts drug dens now, but that responsibility doesn't go away when something is legalized and prohibited to minors. Neither does the help available to drug addicts disappear when you can buy it from the corner store.
Elysia, if you ran a country, would your first approach to urban decay really be "let's legislate it away"? Please, if you have some more stable scheme to deal with the problems addiction causes then share it.
Last edited by whiteflags; 06-04-2008 at 12:12 PM.
I haven't claimed it is, but I have claimed that legalizing it won't make it better, because many of these problems would still remain. People cheat and avoid taxes. The black market won't disappear just because it becomes legal.
All in all, you're pretty much saying that the government will have to pay MORE if it becomes legal. So can the tax money offset that? That is the question.I explained to you that it simply puts a significant strain on law enforcement because the only place for these people to go is jail or rehab. Sure, the DEA busts drug dens now, but that responsibility doesn't go away when something is legalized and prohibited to minors. Neither does the help available to drug addicts disappear when you can buy it from the corner store.
No, obviously not, but I have explained that in this case, I find the advantages of banning it better than legalizing it. This is a case-by-case basis and if it isn't banned in the first place, then an actual study may provide interesting results that may help drive the matter further.Elysia, if you ran a country, would your first approach to urban decay really be "let's legislate it away"? Please, if you have some more stable scheme to deal with the problems addiction causes then share it.
Each case has its own solution. Obviously, banning everything is not always the way to go, but it sometimes has benefits. Why else are there laws?
As the others have already been addressed. I'm not going to respond to any of your comments other than this one:
One reason for that is that by removing a black market, you remove the violence that is associated with it. Another reason is that stoned people are less violent by nature anyway; if more of the people that go out drinking drink less and smoke a bit of cannabis instead there would be less violence.>> There would be less violence
When anyone can get their hands on it? I don't believe so. There will be more, if anything.
Now, please explain the reasons why you think violence will increase.
And do you think this is the case with cigarettes then?People cheat and avoid taxes. The black market won't disappear just because it becomes legal.
How I need a drink, alcoholic in nature, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics.
Indeed, and what would prompt such a change? Banning it or allow it?
More people get hold of it than if just the black market would have it.Now, please explain the reasons why you think violence will increase.
People can steal/fight with each other.
Knowing our nature, there will always be people who do bad things, and if the public gets them, it will just grow, won't it? Seeing as the public are far more than everyone in the black market.
There are other unstable groups than just the drug dealers, as well.
That does not explain why violence would increase. If you think cannabis makes people violent then at least provide some reasoning for this belief.More people get hold of it than if just the black market would have it.
Erm.... Ok o_0People can steal/fight with each other.
You still cant answer what bad things these people will be doing, and how it relates to the subject.Knowing our nature, there will always be people who do bad things, and if the public gets them, it will just grow, won't it? Seeing as the public are far more than everyone in the black market.
And what unstable groups are these?There are other unstable groups than just the drug dealers, as well.
Seriously, how long will it take to get a well defined answer out of you? I'm guessing that you will never be able to produce one because you don't know what you are talking about.
I know how people are. I know how the world works.
I have no scientific evidence simply because I don't want to spend the time looking for them.
I have explained logical drawbacks, and I base decisions upon this.
If you wish not to believe them or criticize them - go ahead. I will not back down from my viewpoint, however, because noone has proved those claims wrong.
But you don't have to believe me either.