Can anyone give 1 legit reason why recreational use of drugs should not be legalized?

Advocates of prohibition miss the point of how much economic damage is caused by prohibition, along with damage to civil liberties, neighborhoods, and human lives. They also seem to ignore the long term economic damage done to those who are saddled with arrest and conviction records.

I would also question why you believe that you have the right to put people into cages who choose a different courses other than producing wealth to whatever capacity you believe they should. Is it immoral to choose to do some drugs and therefore not produce as much as you think they should and does that immorality justify the police powers of the state to stop it?

I can understand why the imperial Chinese government would want to stem the tide of loss of productivity, it meant fewer people propping up their lavish lifestyles. Do you work for the government? I could see politicians also having the same fear.

 

The argument that people should be locked into cages because their choices result in loss of productivity is repulsive. A person arguing for that point implies that they have some ownership of the lives of other human beings.

 

These people aren't alone on an island; instead, they are a part of an interconnected society. Society already pays the costs associated with addicts in terms of various regulation enforcement, support programs, loss of value of real estate, health services, and other associated costs. The multiplier of heroin addiction along with the economics of legalization imply that these costs will skyrocket while the ability to collect tax revenue decays. The rest of society picks up the tab for a groups drug habbit.

 

-

I guess I'll have to say it again...

One good reason, ok, Tooth Decay!

 

I too oppose having to pay for other people being morons and thats what most systems make us do. But what if health was fully privatized and the govt handed you a voucher for roughly what they pay per person already?

Someone that stays fit (doesnt drink too many big gulps), doesnt smoke, drinks in moderation, isnt drug addicted will pay less for the same health coverage. Others will have to either pay more for the same or go without certain options, which would be their choice and they will have to live or die with the results of their decisions. Im happy to legalize ect as long we make people accountable and responsible for their choices, a voucher/ private system would achieve that.

 

Diseases and sickness can spread very rapidly and easily in an interconnected society. People will pay one way or another on health issues.

If we assume a cooperative model for our society, it's important for us to be honest about the effects of freeloading off of the rest of society's efforts. If freeloading is allowed to be conductive, it will over time cause the model to fail. It's not an insurmountable problem, we just have to have some degree of expectation of someone's role in wider society. While we may set aside some actors do to their inability to perform those expectations, there needs to be legitimacy involved.

If we assume an individualists model, we become very vulnerable to cooperative models but no longer have to worry about the freeloader problem.

There isn't a free lunch here.

Drugs should be open to medical use and research, but they need to remain controlled. Economically, they are profitable if they are exported afar, but they do economic damage to the consuming nation. For example, we could build a two trillion dollar infrastructure every ten years on what we pay in health-care costs for Tobacco consumption.

 

But the extremes the Chinese had to go to rid themselves of the reprobates of the English political establishment and there control of the heroine trade, many Chinese lost there lives.
You're very naive.

Regards
Highlander

 

Would any State be worse off if they engender a "moral" of encouraging the citizenry (in the several States) to become more proficient at handling their drugs better than their drugs handle them?

 

Ah, I see, I don't agree with you that millions of people should be shoved through the justice system, have their futures ruined, and possibly put into cages for years so that I don't have to cower in the fear that perhaps, just possibly, more than a small percentage of people will obtain a substance and choose to put it in their bodies. That makes me naive. Well, better that than a coward who advocates violence against his neighbors out of fear of the unknown.

 

You don't have any right to force through legislation to further your actions which destroy communities and nations, your sheeple. You have every right to go to those places which furnish your desires, but not at my expense. Not at my families expense, and not to the detriment of others.
Regards
Highlander

 

I see, so you have the right to charge others for the cost of locking up people who haven't done anyone any harm. You have the right to charge others for the immense cost of police services to prevent people from getting things that they want and use while hurting no one else.

I have a principle for rights. Yours, apparently, is might is right.

It is your government's war on drugs that destroys communities, locks up millions, is extremely racist, and which props up the funding of drug lords around the world. You are contributing to their cause, and you call me "sheeple." You believe what your government tells you and go right along with the destruction.

 

Ever been to Portugal? Nice place to have a vacation. Reading all kinds of war on drugs apologist garbage, I was scared I'd be eaten alive by quasi zombies frothing at their mouths.

 

Your a free man, you can do anything you wish provided it doesn't inhibit, the democracy of the majority.
Your standards aren't mine, nor should I be forced to lower my morality to others to satisfy your impulses.
Regards
Highlander

 

Ah, yes, the assumption typically made by a statist. If someone advocates for freedom, they must be libertine. On the basis of this assumption, it is therefore moral, to the statist, to use aggression against peaceful people in order to force his morals onto others.

Do your standards include no lying, no adultery, and no cursing in public? Mine do, yet I don't call for police powers to be used to enforce my standards. Unless you advocate for laws against these things, then I have to assume that you are a lying adulterer who enjoys cursing in public and you want to force others to be the same. As ridiculous as that sounds, that's exactly what you claims those who seek and end to drug prohibition want when it comes to drug use.

 

I could say your a fool but I don't know you yet!

Afghanistan and the Taliban cut opium levels to 2percent of the worlds supply of heroin.

America and your elected AIPAC sponsors in the White House created a war on terror, which really was American terror, invaded Afghanistan and hey presto, 98percent of the worlds heroin supply comes from the American puppet and previous oil cartel CEO.
You may believe in fairies, I don't.
The cut heroin protected by NATO and American troops, transported by the same armies to destinations like your town or city, and you have the ordascity to speak of principles, in a word....... Bollocks.

Regards
Highlander

 

And how they tried in the early 20th century.

But I don't know that the American public ever complained about Prohibition by saying that their "freedoms were being abridged" like modern pot smokers and their ilk.

 

My standards are just that, mine, I do not impose anything on anyone. I expect to have a moral right for the majority to protected from the scum of the earth, that's the top or the bottom of the pile. Both extremes are then marginalised. The majority have there say on standards which allows everyone regards less of colour creed or standing a balance to life's pleasures.

But a small extreme greedy self serving selfish person cannot inflict damage to me or mine.

Regards
Highlander

 

same way we do with alcohol, public intoxication is a crime

 

natural herbs should be legal, I would draw the line at synthetic drugs

 

What about other illegal behaviour, should pedophiles not have the same right should we not cater for these aberrations of human behaviour?
Where would you draw a line...... History teaches us, if the majority create the standards, everyone but extremes are catered for in a just society.
But history teaches us individuals are marginalised so extremists get what they desire at the expense of the majority so take your need and desperation for drugs and shove it where the sun don't shine.
Highlander

 

It can't be real times of war if our federal Congress cannot justify wartime tax rates. From one perspective and in that alternative, our current public policies merely enable those who have enough money, to make more money while calling it Capitalism.

 

The line is drawn where a victim comes into existence. Nobody is victimized by someone consuming a drug in their own home. This isn't a difficult concept.

 

that is a crime against a person, I am surprised you can't see the difference between someone relaxing with a magic brownie and someone molesting a child, there is a huge difference there

so I suppose you think alcohol should be illegal too?

 

Pharmaceutical drugs too. A lot of people get jacked up on pharmaceutical drugs. And if I'm not mistaken, every single school shooter was either on pharmaceutical drugs or experiencing withdrawal. Maybe if they were jacked up on heroin instead these atrocities would not have happened.

 

No one can argue against, successfully, the individual recreational use of what are now illegal drugs.

Most responses ignore our current allowable substances and their addictive properties, or regurgitate DARE type rhetoric while ignoring the fact that abuse of any drug is an illness. Recreational use is not abuse unless it affects aspects outside the situation of your recreational use. Privatized prisons have long fueled the drug laws in our country since they make money off it. Legalizing drugs would take away their cash cow and that's really what it comes down to.