The usual complaint; would you want your children to take drugs?
Is not the correct question; ‘would you like your children to get drugs from a criminal or a chemist’ is.
Drugs are harmful?
Depends on the amounts taken in most cases. Thing is, within the next few years maybe a decade or so, we will be able to genetically engineer drugs to specific requirements, the negatives and side-effects can largely be removed. We will also be able to get code on the net with which we can continually make new drugs ~ how can you legislate for that even?
There is no political desire to stop drug abuse [otherwise they could largely stop it] imho, where ‘opium for the people’ is needed it may occur, is the only way I can comprehend it all. In other words, we can get drugs if we want them [opium - people] though we are generally told not to. They don’t want us all to take drugs, just people who need them to be able to. Then gradually most of us get off them and onto drink [which ok is another drug].
If you don’t have Expectations of better, if you don’t want more and are ok with what you have, no matter how little, no matter how void, empty, whatever, then you are ok. As soon as you want more you are no longer ok, you need to win, you need to fight and play the game and risk losing, etc. So, you win and sometimes you lose, etc. better not to play these games at all, give us all back our good old nothing, nothing forever, void, empty, pure nothingness forever.
I’m a fan of the legalization of marijuana because, alcohol and tobacco are already legal and they cause more harm. Furthermore, were marijuana legal, you’re talking about the second or third biggest cash crop in the United States, so that’s a shitload of taxable revenue. There would be even more taxable revenue and actual profit if the Government monopolized the production and distribution of marijuana, but if I’m not mistaken, Phillip Morris already bought those rights if the legalization of marijuana becomes a reality…and I think they’d have exclusivity for ten years.
My chief concern with other drugs is that the effects people have while they are on many of them can be an explicit danger to others. Personally, I would be strongly in favor of legalized and Government run, “Drug Houses.” The way that one of these drughouses would work is: (and people would sign a waiver) you would be given certain doses of drugs, but you could never go past a maximum dose, you would also rent a padded room with only a mattress, sheets, blankets, pillows, TV built into the wall with wall based remote, and anything else that you could carry (non-lethal) you could bring in there. There would also be a pager so that you could order food if you wanted to. You would use your, “Drug Room,” for either a 12 or 24 hour increment, and you would pay a fee based upon the length of time you were using it.
It would be a cash fucking cow.
Obviously, you have to make sure that people don’t circumvent the prohibitive expensiveness of the system, so that’s why unlicensed manufacture, sale or distribution of any drug would result in the death penalty, first offense.
If they give them life, then it would be better just to execute. You’re basically right about Singapore, hanging is the penalty for drug trafficking, but the amount of drugs you have to have is pretty serious. For example, marijuana would require you to possess 500 grams, which is about 1.1 pounds. I’d probably have the death penalty for the unlicensed sale of any amount, after all, we’d be making them all legal!
The name of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is a strong hint there are ways of getting into trouble selling cigarettes and not just to minors…
That’s very harsh. Moonshining never carried that level of penalty and that stuff was often much more dangerous than grow it yourself pot. Essentially you are suggesting a death penalty for tax evasion or perhaps health code violations. Given the history of pretty strong product safety related to illegally grown pot, I can’t see having such a penalty. It should be on the level of an unliscenced street vendor of hot dogs or something.
It is harsh, but unlike murder, which is a crime based generally on emotion or insanity, I think being killed for growing your own pot would very likely serve as a deterrent for such an action. If it does not, then Darwinism will resolve the problem. Not mentally fit. Easy to make more, they are being made every day. Is the sale of a dimebag worth dying for when it can be bought in any gas station?
You can sell tax-free tobacco that you grow yourself or sell to minors, etc.
But the point is that executing people for smuggling drugs if you legalize them would be equivalent to executing someone for smuggling alcohol or cigarettes today.
I concede the argument with respect only to marijuana. I do not concede the argument with respect to other drugs because they may only be used in a Government-sanctioned setting, in my model.
The death penalty will be a deterrent, exactly. I appreciate you conceding the point. I don’t really care who the death penalty for murder is usally for, because, now it’s for everyone who commits murder.
I’m looking mainly at laws designed to protect people, but not so much from themselves. In other words, if you jaywalk and are hit by a car, you’re going to get hurt, probably worse, than the car or the driver. You also did not steal anything from anybody and youy action wasn’t made with the intent to physically harm, steal from or otherwise swindle someone.
I used to think that they should legalize all the drugs. Now I realize that I haven’t ever been in a time or place in my life where I couldn’t get however much of whatever I wanted. So far, the fact that it’s illegal hasn’t been a whole lot of a hindrance to me doing what I want to do.
Also, if the stuff was being marketed commercially, it’d kill margins.