|
Contradictions for the intended purpose i don't see, weaknesses for the intended purpose i do. He's free to take what he wants for his purposes. I didn't feel that i needed to do that for him.
"t's not like there's an epidemic of PCP users raping random women."
I think you're answering the wrong question. Is there an epidemic of PCP users involved in illegal activity (aside from the legality of drugs in question). Relative to non-users, I would bet "yes" though i don't have the statistics on hand. I'm going out on a limb here, but i'm assuming you'd agree. Especially since you seemed to acknowledge there is a problem inherant in drug use by the following statement " which will bring up (somewhere) a rebuttal on use and misuse of a drug." (i.e. - those who are commiting drug crimes, aren't using the drug properly) Who's problem is it then to teach the use and misuse of drug use, and who's problem is it to deal with the negative effects of it's legalization. I see your argument as incomplete. You seem to be saying that are government has no business applying laws to drugs we can and cannot do. How do you avoid negative societal effects of no drug laws? Teach the proper "uses and misuses", of a particular drug. Being that it will inevitably fall on the government shoulders to address these negative effects, there can only be one answer...it is the governments responsibility to teach the "uses and misuses."
"Why should I have to go to a doctor and get justification for a medication, whether it be an antibiotic or Tylenol with Codeine, when other people can take heroin whenever they choose? How are we going to justify the need for prescriptions for medications which are much less harmful when people can get crack at any time? Why can't I take a powerful prescription diet pill (I don't take these - this is an example) whenever I want, without a prescription, if people can shoot up on heroin? "
I can't see how we can force people to get prescriptions for other medications when they can get "hard drugs" whenever they like. So, in other words, we either have to eliminate the need for prescriptions for all drugs, and allow "banned" drugs, such as Phen-Fen, or we're going to have safer drugs harder to get than the more dangerous drugs. "
These are points i think he could use. As she was saying, if illicit drugs are legalized, they will more than likely be government regulated. They will be prescription. Medical reasons for legalization of marijuana are always cited. Are you arguing marijuana should be prescription, in which case you can drop the tax revenue argument as prescription drugs aren't taxed, or are you arguing people should be free to smoke marijuana at the slightest hint of nausea. Your average nausea sufferer isn't fighting for the right to buy a quarter, we all know who is.
The fact remains, there will be societal effects from it's legalization, as there are with alcohol.
That was nothing but a rant which i refuse to reread, so please forgive any repitious points, misspellings, etc.
Don't forget that there were other links at the bottom of the page Xiang, and i'm sure a shitload of others googled. In the world of the internet, there's no excuse for relying on grandmom's take.
|