Liberal Forum

JinnMartini » 14 Jul 2022, 4:14 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jul 2022, 4:14 am

That must be the dumbest **** I've read in a long time !

You may just as well legalize human traficking,
That would dry up a big chunk of their income.
The price per traficked person would plummet to below cost !
They'd have to bring in trainloads of sex slaves, labor slaves and organs  "donors", to make a few dollars profit for all those involved !
Hell, it would be more profitable for them to go flip hamburgers !

And legalize murder too, of course !
Who would pay to put out a contract on someone, when you can do it yourself for free ?

I could go on  . . . 

Oh boy  . . .  you liberals must be the dumbest creatures on the planet !

You and I disgree on this. Drugs are far too dangerous and socially disruptive to leave their regulation to criminal cartels. Just look round - it isn't serving society.

Did you know that nuclear devices, anthrax, full-auto machine guns and grenade launchers (as well as the grenades they launch), heat seeking missiles and bunker-buster, multi-megaaton bombs all have at least one thing in common?

Yes, they are all legal - perfectly legal. And highly regulated. 

Ending prohibition does not necessarily mean letting 7-11's sell crack. We could require licenses to use certain drugs - each drug made available under conditions of rigor suited to how dangerous it is to society and the user. We could require buyers to sign usage itineraries, legally attesting where and with whom and under what conditions the purchased drugs will be used. We could create districts wherein usage is allowed, exempting straight society from even SEEING the ****.

Before prohibition, the top one or two percent and the bottom one or two percent dabbled in narcotics. There were no pushers. People knew not to **** with the powders. Where would you put the percentage DURING prohibition? 

Before prohibition, we saw mass addiction coming out of the civil war. It ended in a matter of a few years, left to the individual. There being no pusher to create a culture around getting high, addicts were seen as sick, and they kicked. There was no mystery - just an acceptable level of misery for the addict, to get his life and reputation back. Those who chose to remain addicts were able to function in society, because there was no crime-exponent built into the price of a fix. 

The government has a regulatory interest in drugs - which it derives the same place it gets ALL just powers - from you. It has no prohibition interest, because it is well and truly not your place to tell me I can never try heroin - only to tell me not to drive near your family, not to offer it to your kids, not to pilot a plane if I'm a junky. These are regulatory interests.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact - and legalizing, taxing and regulating narcotics is not a suicide. Indeed, prohibition is. 

We tried it in the thirties. It didn't work out that great, the first time around. On a scale of one to ten, how would YOU say prohibition is serving our nation?