05-26-2004, 06:05 AM
|
#28 (permalink)
|
Psycho
|
Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
I've refrained from commenting since my opinions generally vary greatly with the legalization crowd.
I just have some questions that may (or may not) generate some discussion. Let's say we go the "legalization" route on drugs.
Which would be legalized? Just pot? All drugs? LSD, speed, coke, crack, etc? If not all of them, then you'll still have a vast network of drug dealers and users who resort to violence to achieve their goals.
|
All drugs. No more dealers.
Quote:
What would be the criteria for getting the drugs and how would the process work? Anyone who feels like getting high could get them? What about age limits? Will only those over the age of 18 (or maybe 21 since you can't get alcohol till you're 21) be able to get them? If so, what will stop the illegal distribution of drugs to those under the age of 18?
|
The same as cigarettes and alcohol - age limits. What will stop the illegal distribution to underage users is the same thing that stops the distribution of alcohol and cigarettes to underage users - the underage market is just not a viable one. No-one is going to be bothered about going out of their way to supply them. Obviously some of them will get their hands on some illcit goodies, but that happens now anyway.
Quote:
Who will control the distribution of them? Will they be distributed Over the Counter (OTC)? Or would a more rigorous provess be needed? If so, it seems to make sense to me that the pharmaceutical industry would be best equipped to handle it and would likely get the nod from the government. Would you need to get a doctor's approval? Would the pharma industry/medical professions being a main player in it be a problem to those advocating legalization? Will certain professions be banned from using? Police, fire, doctors, etc?
|
I imagine the drug shops of tomorrow would be like the booze and porn shops of today. A doctor's approval would be unnecessary. No professions would be banned from using by law, although, as is the case in anything, if usage started interfering with performance, then action would be necessary (against the individual concerned - I'm not talking about reviewing the laws).
Obviously I would be happier if our doctors, firemen and police weren't high on the job, but there's nothing stopping them being so now in any case. Just as there are regulations about them under the influence of alcohol at work, those same restrictions would apply to narcotics.
By the way, do you know that amphetamines are often distributed to army personnel, especially those involved in night-time operations? I'd rather that was stopped too.
Quote:
Who will ultimately be sued by those hurt by them? Will the government be liable because they knew the risks associated with them and still legalized them? Will the pharma companies be sued (assuming they are involved) like the gun companies and cigarette manufacturers?
|
No-one will be sued, as the drug distributors will have learnt from the mistakes of the tobacco industry. The public will be aware of the consequences of their actions and will be making informed choices. The consequences are then their responsibility, not the manufacturer's.
Quote:
What will happen to the sophisticated drug running operations already in existence? Does anyone think these criminal organizations will just melt away? They will likely continue operating with inferior product selling to those who can't get drugs within the new system.
|
There is no new system, so yes, the drug traffickers will just melt away. Just like there is no 'black market' alcohol trade (other than those smuggling to cheat on tax payments), there will be no 'black-market' drug trade. What would be the point?
|
|
|