And take the crime out of the culture. I'm not just talking about marijuana, come on! Everything! Class A, B, C, prescrition drugs etc. Treat adults as adults and let them control what they put in their body. That's what the US was founded on after all isn't it - freedom of the individual to control his or her life?
Legalize Every Drug
- Thread starter Captain Canada
- Start date
Most adults don't act the way they should when it comes to drugs, their addictions come from the time when they were teenagers and were experimenting or when they were trying to fit in. People do drugs whether or not they are legalized.
The US has two legal drugs on the market. Alchohol and Tobacco. Look at all the problems we have with those. Can you imagine what it would be like if we had every drug legalized? If that ever happens we'll never be able to go back to the first two, we already tried back in the fourties-I think-and that's when organized crime sprung up and wreaked havoc upon everything in the cities. Some of those mobs still exist today. You just can't do it. The US would also look weak in the eyes of other nations if it gave up on the drug war and legalized everything. They're dangerous substances, far worse in most cases than alchohol or tobacco.
You can't have too much faith in the population as a whole.
The US has two legal drugs on the market. Alchohol and Tobacco. Look at all the problems we have with those. Can you imagine what it would be like if we had every drug legalized? If that ever happens we'll never be able to go back to the first two, we already tried back in the fourties-I think-and that's when organized crime sprung up and wreaked havoc upon everything in the cities. Some of those mobs still exist today. You just can't do it. The US would also look weak in the eyes of other nations if it gave up on the drug war and legalized everything. They're dangerous substances, far worse in most cases than alchohol or tobacco.
You can't have too much faith in the population as a whole.
Okay...
So what you're saying is that in some instances the state knows best and should control an individuals private life.
Perhaps you're right. Maybe we should go on and ban homosexuality. These people just don't know that it's bad for them. Their desirous side is controlling their lives and leading them down an evil path!
What else shall we ban?
Doughnuts - high fat content. Given the health problems associated with them, I suggest we ban them for the well-being of society. In fact, all junk food should be banned. We need to stop heart disease.
And books. I've read a few, and reckon others are unable to cope. Just look at those fanatics who read the bible! That book seriously affects them. Should be banned. State knows best.
Okay, okay. I know you're saying that drugs are a special case. I would argue against you from two points though:
1. Pragmatic. Legalising takes out the criminal element (the bit most people hate) and, I think, shifts the problem to dealing with addicts rather than super-rich, armed, violent drug cartels. I don't think we'd all suddenly become addicts. If they started selling heroin in your local pharmacy, would you become an instant junky?
2. Philosophical. The old JS Mill philosophy. Distinction between self-affecting and other-affecting actions. Where an activity affects society (such as violence on another) the state has a place to intervene. Where an activity affects only the individual (drug taking, consensual sex of any sort etc) the state has no place to legislate. To allow the state to do so is to invite oppression.
Any thoughts?
So what you're saying is that in some instances the state knows best and should control an individuals private life.
Perhaps you're right. Maybe we should go on and ban homosexuality. These people just don't know that it's bad for them. Their desirous side is controlling their lives and leading them down an evil path!
What else shall we ban?
Doughnuts - high fat content. Given the health problems associated with them, I suggest we ban them for the well-being of society. In fact, all junk food should be banned. We need to stop heart disease.
And books. I've read a few, and reckon others are unable to cope. Just look at those fanatics who read the bible! That book seriously affects them. Should be banned. State knows best.
Okay, okay. I know you're saying that drugs are a special case. I would argue against you from two points though:
1. Pragmatic. Legalising takes out the criminal element (the bit most people hate) and, I think, shifts the problem to dealing with addicts rather than super-rich, armed, violent drug cartels. I don't think we'd all suddenly become addicts. If they started selling heroin in your local pharmacy, would you become an instant junky?
2. Philosophical. The old JS Mill philosophy. Distinction between self-affecting and other-affecting actions. Where an activity affects society (such as violence on another) the state has a place to intervene. Where an activity affects only the individual (drug taking, consensual sex of any sort etc) the state has no place to legislate. To allow the state to do so is to invite oppression.
Any thoughts?
I'm all for legalization
But I did want to make a comment regarding Shrike's post:
In King County, Washington, our Sheriff is about to take one step backwards, and return focus to the low-level dealers. Since we're already holding 350 people in our county jail for the crime of being foreign, I'm not sure what we're going to do with all of the hard criminals, since the rest of the bedspace will soon be occupied by nickel-and-dime dealers and users.
Captain Canada: Since the US is fighting against the negative aspects of substances without recognizing their positive attributes, I personally think caffeine should be made illegal.
Incidentally, did you know that in the US, marijuana is considered by the federal government to be more harmful to the individual, and to have a higher addiction potential than methamphetamine? Considering that it has become popular down here to attempt to establish that marijuana is as addictive as caffeine, I think a coffee ban would be appropriate.
http://www.sciforums.com/t3611/s685761fac251bdea55ea5995d0f36999/thread.html is a link to a thread I started on the coffee issue in the World Affairs & Politics forum, which includes a link to a news story on a recent art demonstration in which caffeine was banned from Amherst University for a day.
thanx,
Tiassa
But I did want to make a comment regarding Shrike's post:
Most adults don't act like adults period, whether it's about drugs, parenthood, driving a car, shooting a gun, ad nauseam. I would disagree about addicitons coming from teen years and "experimentation", but I'll leave that issue aside for the general nature of Shrike's phrasing; there's much there I may not be accounting for in the stated perspective.
In King County, Washington, our Sheriff is about to take one step backwards, and return focus to the low-level dealers. Since we're already holding 350 people in our county jail for the crime of being foreign, I'm not sure what we're going to do with all of the hard criminals, since the rest of the bedspace will soon be occupied by nickel-and-dime dealers and users.
Captain Canada: Since the US is fighting against the negative aspects of substances without recognizing their positive attributes, I personally think caffeine should be made illegal.
Incidentally, did you know that in the US, marijuana is considered by the federal government to be more harmful to the individual, and to have a higher addiction potential than methamphetamine? Considering that it has become popular down here to attempt to establish that marijuana is as addictive as caffeine, I think a coffee ban would be appropriate.
http://www.sciforums.com/t3611/s685761fac251bdea55ea5995d0f36999/thread.html is a link to a thread I started on the coffee issue in the World Affairs & Politics forum, which includes a link to a news story on a recent art demonstration in which caffeine was banned from Amherst University for a day.
thanx,
Tiassa
Capn I see where you're coming from but you're wrong! The government is only interested in it's citizens safety. Do you think the kids and adults addicted to heroine, who puke, go unconscious, amongst other things LIKE using the drugs?? NO!! Because they're addictive, widly addictive. They're not like doughnuts or homosexuality, doughnuts ARE NOT addictive and homosexuality is a choice someone makes about their sex life, and disease can just be just as easy to contract if you're heterosexual and if you don't use condoms.
BUT THERE ARE NO CONDOMS FOR DRUGS!!! So many more problems would begin if all of these drugs were created, imagine how many more car accidents, how many more accidents at all would occur if people weren't only drunk but also STONED!!
Not to mention drugs kill you much, much quicker than cigarrettes, and as far as I know alchohol doesn't kill you at all unless you abuse it heavily.
Yes, Tiassa, caffiene should be banned, however I think that the people should actually vote in their own individual states after they've been educated on the pros and cons of caffiene.
BUT THERE ARE NO CONDOMS FOR DRUGS!!! So many more problems would begin if all of these drugs were created, imagine how many more car accidents, how many more accidents at all would occur if people weren't only drunk but also STONED!!
Not to mention drugs kill you much, much quicker than cigarrettes, and as far as I know alchohol doesn't kill you at all unless you abuse it heavily.
Yes, Tiassa, caffiene should be banned, however I think that the people should actually vote in their own individual states after they've been educated on the pros and cons of caffiene.
Still Not Convinced
Shrike, I hope I would not be misrepresenting your view by suggesting that you are arguing along the same two lines I have been - pragamatic and philiosophical. As I see it, you are saying:
1. Legalizing drugs would create more addicts and damage society.
2. The freedom of choice involved in recreational drug taking is one that disappears as addiction and compulsion intervene.
Yes, I can see the points you are making, but I still think the dangers of legalizing are less than the dangers of keeping the drugs illegal. A couple of other arguments I'd like to offer:
1. Under prohibition in the US the level of alcoholism rose significantly. This suggests that the legality or otherwise of intoxicating substances bears little on the levels of addiction (of course the depression may have had something to do with this).
2. Britain built an empire at a time when opium dens were enjoying their heyday in London. The fact that opium was widely available did not harm Britain (the country's most succesful - in economic terms - years).
3. I can easily find any drug I want today. The fact that I don't necessarily do so is more a matter of choice than legality or availability. I would credit most people with the same ability to choose.
4. The addictive qualities of drugs have not really been properly researched. Cocaine is less phyisically addictive than nicotene, but heroin is very phydically addictive. Just how much we don't really know.
There are many more arguments from a pragmatic perspective. But as this is a philosophy thread on ethics etc. I think that is the question we should focus on.
I still can't see how the state can tell me, as I sit in my house, on my own, watching TV that by smoking marijuana or taking some other drug I am destroying society. If I want to destroy my body then surely that's up to me. I think the Mill argument I put forward still stands, but perhaps you haver another view?
Shrike, I hope I would not be misrepresenting your view by suggesting that you are arguing along the same two lines I have been - pragamatic and philiosophical. As I see it, you are saying:
1. Legalizing drugs would create more addicts and damage society.
2. The freedom of choice involved in recreational drug taking is one that disappears as addiction and compulsion intervene.
Yes, I can see the points you are making, but I still think the dangers of legalizing are less than the dangers of keeping the drugs illegal. A couple of other arguments I'd like to offer:
1. Under prohibition in the US the level of alcoholism rose significantly. This suggests that the legality or otherwise of intoxicating substances bears little on the levels of addiction (of course the depression may have had something to do with this).
2. Britain built an empire at a time when opium dens were enjoying their heyday in London. The fact that opium was widely available did not harm Britain (the country's most succesful - in economic terms - years).
3. I can easily find any drug I want today. The fact that I don't necessarily do so is more a matter of choice than legality or availability. I would credit most people with the same ability to choose.
4. The addictive qualities of drugs have not really been properly researched. Cocaine is less phyisically addictive than nicotene, but heroin is very phydically addictive. Just how much we don't really know.
There are many more arguments from a pragmatic perspective. But as this is a philosophy thread on ethics etc. I think that is the question we should focus on.
I still can't see how the state can tell me, as I sit in my house, on my own, watching TV that by smoking marijuana or taking some other drug I am destroying society. If I want to destroy my body then surely that's up to me. I think the Mill argument I put forward still stands, but perhaps you haver another view?
Well, why not apply that to all?
Of course, the campaigns would have to be honest. Read some of the anti-marijuana propaganda from the American 1930's, '40s, and '50s ... it's disgraceful. Oh, and we'd have to put alcohol on the ballot, too ... but I'm already against prohibition to begin with, so I'm not anxious to visit that one during my lifetime.
There are several difficult-to-obtain reports that indicate that marijuana users get in less traffic accidents. I haven't one of these at hand, but I'm still working to find one.
Sam Donaldson of ABC news, in Fields of Gold (I think was the title), a special on marijuana, noted a Kentucky sheriff's department that claimed an anonymous survey of its employess showed that marijuana users took less sick days, however that works out. I'll dig up my videotape of the special and see if I can find the actual report.
thanx,
Tiassa
Fair enough. But why not legalize every drug, campaign based on the truth, and let the people decide? Marijuana, cocaine, psilocybin, and LSD; heroin, methamphetamine, and PCP would fail. Opium resin and Ecstasy are up in the air; neither should be illegal, but I can easily see the voters recalling that heroin is an opiate, and that Ecstasy contains meth.
Of course, the campaigns would have to be honest. Read some of the anti-marijuana propaganda from the American 1930's, '40s, and '50s ... it's disgraceful. Oh, and we'd have to put alcohol on the ballot, too ... but I'm already against prohibition to begin with, so I'm not anxious to visit that one during my lifetime.
Coulda, maybe, might ... in the United States, we are innocent until proven guilty, and protected from government intervention until the authority has probable cause to believe we are hurting someone or their property. Except, of course, for drugs, which are illegal merely because they think we might do something bad. University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center (UC-NORC) put out a study in '99 that's buried somewhere in these archives in one of my posts--I'll dig up the study later if I can--that demonstrates no perceptible difference between drug users and non-users in the workplace; the survey only applied to people who admit to using drugs, and did not collect data on how many use in the workplace.
There are several difficult-to-obtain reports that indicate that marijuana users get in less traffic accidents. I haven't one of these at hand, but I'm still working to find one.
Sam Donaldson of ABC news, in Fields of Gold (I think was the title), a special on marijuana, noted a Kentucky sheriff's department that claimed an anonymous survey of its employess showed that marijuana users took less sick days, however that works out. I'll dig up my videotape of the special and see if I can find the actual report.
thanx,
Tiassa
Last edited:
You're not from the US!
Welcome to the most conservative, Christian country next to the Vatican City itself.
Yes the US is kinda founded on the freedom to make one's own choices. Then again this doesn't apply to everything, that's why there is a government to do things after all.
Another freedom is to not suffer because of others. Yes the crime rate would reduce DRASTICALLY if all drugs were legalized, but who cares?
Guess what crime isn't that bad in the US and hasn't been even in the Depression.
If we wanted drugs legalized, we'd vote, because the government is by the people for the people.
Most people realize that drugs being legalized is a STUPID idea, that's why they aren't legal.
Welcome to the most conservative, Christian country next to the Vatican City itself.
Yes the US is kinda founded on the freedom to make one's own choices. Then again this doesn't apply to everything, that's why there is a government to do things after all.
Another freedom is to not suffer because of others. Yes the crime rate would reduce DRASTICALLY if all drugs were legalized, but who cares?
Guess what crime isn't that bad in the US and hasn't been even in the Depression.
If we wanted drugs legalized, we'd vote, because the government is by the people for the people.
Most people realize that drugs being legalized is a STUPID idea, that's why they aren't legal.
Curly,
Fifty percent of everyone currently in US hospitals are there because of either smoking or alcohol related issues. Problems related to the drugs, as in this topic, barely register.
Alcohol and tobacco are also drugs.
At the time of prohibition alcohol was made illegal and the crime rate soared accordingly. If you attempt to limit the people from what they want then they will find a way to get it, illegal or not.
We should make all drugs freely available from any pharmacist at reasonable prices, and remove the unenforceable laws.
This will do several things –
1. Make drugs vastly cheaper. This will reduce related crimes where many are forced to steal to finance their expensive habits.
2. If drug-taking becomes acceptable then many institutions and clubs will form so that people can take and use drugs safely and in controlled and pleasant surroundings instead of back-alleys and in fear of being discovered.
3. The drug dealers who thrive on exorbitant prices will fade away together with the violence that accompanies them.
A very large number of people want to experiment with hallucinatory drugs and they should have that right. The USA should be about personal freedoms yet the USA is one of the most bureaucratic, censor rife, and restrictive countries in the world.
The basis of western law is – everyone should be free to do anything they wish except where such actions would interfere with the freedom of others.
I am not interested in drugs and have never experimented and have no plans to do so. Such drugs alter the correct functioning of the brain and can cause permanent damage. But I do not see that I have any right to tell others how to run or ruin their lives and neither have governments.
Let the marketplace decide what can be bought and sold. Artificial restrictions lead to crime when something is clearly and overwhelmingly desired.
Cris
Fifty percent of everyone currently in US hospitals are there because of either smoking or alcohol related issues. Problems related to the drugs, as in this topic, barely register.
Alcohol and tobacco are also drugs.
At the time of prohibition alcohol was made illegal and the crime rate soared accordingly. If you attempt to limit the people from what they want then they will find a way to get it, illegal or not.
We should make all drugs freely available from any pharmacist at reasonable prices, and remove the unenforceable laws.
This will do several things –
1. Make drugs vastly cheaper. This will reduce related crimes where many are forced to steal to finance their expensive habits.
2. If drug-taking becomes acceptable then many institutions and clubs will form so that people can take and use drugs safely and in controlled and pleasant surroundings instead of back-alleys and in fear of being discovered.
3. The drug dealers who thrive on exorbitant prices will fade away together with the violence that accompanies them.
A very large number of people want to experiment with hallucinatory drugs and they should have that right. The USA should be about personal freedoms yet the USA is one of the most bureaucratic, censor rife, and restrictive countries in the world.
The basis of western law is – everyone should be free to do anything they wish except where such actions would interfere with the freedom of others.
I am not interested in drugs and have never experimented and have no plans to do so. Such drugs alter the correct functioning of the brain and can cause permanent damage. But I do not see that I have any right to tell others how to run or ruin their lives and neither have governments.
Let the marketplace decide what can be bought and sold. Artificial restrictions lead to crime when something is clearly and overwhelmingly desired.
Cris
Weather or not drugs should be legalized is besides the point. I can't win this because people have dug into their trenches and won't come out. I can deal with that.
Here's another side issue, they'll never be legalized.
People realize that even during the 1980's crack epidemic/crime wave, the crime though unplesant wasn't as horrible as it could have been. The public can tend to think that their in a crime wave, when they aren't because thats what makes the 6:00 news and the front pages of the newspapers.
The US doesn't know REAL crime, go to any third world country, maybe Mexico, and Colombia. That is real crime.
Listen this country is running pretty good with ILLEGAL drugs.
I've said it once and I'll say it again, this country is ultra-conservative, and won't legalize any drugs.
P.S. I know alcohol and tobacco are drugs, though they are LEGAL. I have my quams with booze, and cigarettes but thats for another time.
I'm starting school now. Time is a wasting away.
Here's another side issue, they'll never be legalized.
People realize that even during the 1980's crack epidemic/crime wave, the crime though unplesant wasn't as horrible as it could have been. The public can tend to think that their in a crime wave, when they aren't because thats what makes the 6:00 news and the front pages of the newspapers.
The US doesn't know REAL crime, go to any third world country, maybe Mexico, and Colombia. That is real crime.
Listen this country is running pretty good with ILLEGAL drugs.
I've said it once and I'll say it again, this country is ultra-conservative, and won't legalize any drugs.
P.S. I know alcohol and tobacco are drugs, though they are LEGAL. I have my quams with booze, and cigarettes but thats for another time.
I'm starting school now. Time is a wasting away.
The reason Tobbacco is legal is because the Goverment makes more than the tobacco companies off of it. Alchohol is legal for the same reason. Taxes.
The only way to make money off of the other drugs (manufacturable by any shmuck in a garden and therefore not taxable) is get it by another means. Namely arresting and charging insane fines and posting really high bails.
They'll never be legal because the government would lose a lot of cash flow.
Ben
The only way to make money off of the other drugs (manufacturable by any shmuck in a garden and therefore not taxable) is get it by another means. Namely arresting and charging insane fines and posting really high bails.
They'll never be legal because the government would lose a lot of cash flow.
Ben
Not to mention the government's friends in international banking who earn a packet from money-laundering.
Interesting correlation.
Check out where the CIA is most active, and see where the biggest supplies of illegal drugs come from.
1960s and 70s - Vietnam, Cambodia
1980s - Afghanistan
1990s - Colombia, Peru
Hmmm. What a coincidence.
Interesting correlation.
Check out where the CIA is most active, and see where the biggest supplies of illegal drugs come from.
1960s and 70s - Vietnam, Cambodia
1980s - Afghanistan
1990s - Colombia, Peru
Hmmm. What a coincidence.
I hate these things!
The reason alcohol and tobbaco are legal is NOT because of taxes entirley, though that does have a large part of it.
Alcohol has been an anglo-saxon favorite for thousands of years, so has tobbaco.
The CIA and the US government doesn fund the drugs into the country. Don't think I've been brainwashed. The government loses more money in the loss of productivity, the war on drugs, and healthcare due to drug addictions than they do by selling it. The US intakes about a TRILLION dollars though taxes of income, tarrifs and an assortment of other things.
Its actually a bad business for a first-world country such as ours to go into. Actually too costly.
Drugs shouldn't be legalized, the addictions can be treated through our VAST physcology network and eduction system. I hope the politicans realise this soon.
The reason alcohol and tobbaco are legal is NOT because of taxes entirley, though that does have a large part of it.
Alcohol has been an anglo-saxon favorite for thousands of years, so has tobbaco.
The CIA and the US government doesn fund the drugs into the country. Don't think I've been brainwashed. The government loses more money in the loss of productivity, the war on drugs, and healthcare due to drug addictions than they do by selling it. The US intakes about a TRILLION dollars though taxes of income, tarrifs and an assortment of other things.
Its actually a bad business for a first-world country such as ours to go into. Actually too costly.
Drugs shouldn't be legalized, the addictions can be treated through our VAST physcology network and eduction system. I hope the politicans realise this soon.
True, but bullets can't. That's why it's worth taking the crime out of the drug problem by legalising them.
No, it doesn't fund it, but is involved. Noriega? Escobar? To name but two.
Sorry, but the CIA really isn't that virtuous. And tacit approval of drug trafficking goes higher up. Noam Chomsky sums it up best:
By then (1960), the center of the drug trade shifted to Indochina, particularly Laos and Thailand. The shift was again a by-product of a CIA operation - the "secret war" fought in those countries during the Vietnam War by a CIA mercenary army. They also wanted a payoff for their contributions. Later, as the CIA shifted its activities to Pakistan and Afghanistan, the drug racket boomed there.
The clandestine war against Nicaragua also provided a shot in the arm to drug traffickers in the region, as illegal CIA arms flights to the US mercenary forces offered an easy way to ship drugs back to the US, sometimes through US Air Force bases, traffickers report.
The close correlation between the drug racket and international terrorism (sometimes called "counterinsurgency," "low intensity conflict" or some other euphemism) is not surprising. Clandestine operations need plenty of money, which should be undetectable. And they need criminal operatives as well. The rest follows.
By then (1960), the center of the drug trade shifted to Indochina, particularly Laos and Thailand. The shift was again a by-product of a CIA operation - the "secret war" fought in those countries during the Vietnam War by a CIA mercenary army. They also wanted a payoff for their contributions. Later, as the CIA shifted its activities to Pakistan and Afghanistan, the drug racket boomed there.
The clandestine war against Nicaragua also provided a shot in the arm to drug traffickers in the region, as illegal CIA arms flights to the US mercenary forces offered an easy way to ship drugs back to the US, sometimes through US Air Force bases, traffickers report.
The close correlation between the drug racket and international terrorism (sometimes called "counterinsurgency," "low intensity conflict" or some other euphemism) is not surprising. Clandestine operations need plenty of money, which should be undetectable. And they need criminal operatives as well. The rest follows.
Maybe, I'll belive it.
Two quick questions:
1) Don't you think after nearly forty years of this the CIA would have been caught with it's pants down? I think I'd be hard for them to hide this, especially when the government can't keep the lid on spys infiltrating the highest ranks of the CIA.
2) The CIA wouldn't fund their programs by selling drugs to it's own citizens. In the grand scheme of things you lose more money by selling drugs, because of more prisions, and loss of productivity as well as other pratfalls.
Could you explane these two?
Two quick questions:
1) Don't you think after nearly forty years of this the CIA would have been caught with it's pants down? I think I'd be hard for them to hide this, especially when the government can't keep the lid on spys infiltrating the highest ranks of the CIA.
2) The CIA wouldn't fund their programs by selling drugs to it's own citizens. In the grand scheme of things you lose more money by selling drugs, because of more prisions, and loss of productivity as well as other pratfalls.
Could you explane these two?
I'm baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack.
I totally forgot about this thread.
Down to business.
Noam Chomsky is one hard sonofab*tch to understand, I read some of him for one of my classes. Jesus that guy can write!
Anyway, Admiral-er Captain Canada the legalization of drugs just won't happen. There's just too many conservatives and too many smart folk to do it in the US or canada. Your king or whatever you guys have is probably too busy hunting rabbits or something to care about drugs in the first place. Things are good the way they are. People aren't smoking as much, and eventually I think it'll stop altogether eventually. And alchohol, at least to my knowledge, isn't that harmful to you in the short or long term as long as you don't consume too much of it. Illegal drugs should be kept illegal and penalties for using them should be, like, exportation to mexico or something. That'd teach the bastads.
just kidding about the bastard thingy. I have nothing against anyone who uses drugs, it's their choice to take a huge risk and spend unnecessary amounts of money.
I totally forgot about this thread.
Down to business.
Noam Chomsky is one hard sonofab*tch to understand, I read some of him for one of my classes. Jesus that guy can write!
Anyway, Admiral-er Captain Canada the legalization of drugs just won't happen. There's just too many conservatives and too many smart folk to do it in the US or canada. Your king or whatever you guys have is probably too busy hunting rabbits or something to care about drugs in the first place. Things are good the way they are. People aren't smoking as much, and eventually I think it'll stop altogether eventually. And alchohol, at least to my knowledge, isn't that harmful to you in the short or long term as long as you don't consume too much of it. Illegal drugs should be kept illegal and penalties for using them should be, like, exportation to mexico or something. That'd teach the bastads.
just kidding about the bastard thingy. I have nothing against anyone who uses drugs, it's their choice to take a huge risk and spend unnecessary amounts of money.
Exactly, so why keep it illegal?