On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:15:23 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Oh, give me a break. Yeah, there are some "low level" things, like pot,
> for which this is a believable assertion.

The people who are for the prohibition of drugs use the same logic that 
brought about alcohol prohibition in the 30's.  It's not about the costs 
to cover treatment and such - it's about it being "bad" for people to do 
that.  It's about one group of people asserting their sense of moral 
superiority.

Understand, I have never done drugs, I never intend to do drugs, and I 
have no desire to do them.  I personally wouldn't because I do think it 
would be bad for me (in a number of ways).  I come at this from a 
standpoint of not having experienced anything related to the types of 
drugs we're talking about (I once got pretty tripped out on Hydrocodone, 
which I react very badly to, but that's a slightly different story 
because it was something obtained with a prescription).

If someone wants to be addicted to cigarettes, pot, alcohol, etc - as 
long as they're not impacting me (through secondhand smoke, for example), 
I don't care.  They can knock themselves out.  Once it leaves them, just 
as with alcohol, then there are consequences and let the consequences be 
steep (as they are for DUI, for example).

Legalization can make those drugs a tax base (as with cigarettes and 
alcohol, and being in Utah, I know a thing or three about alcohol taxes 
because they're DAMNED high here) and legalization can turn it into an 
actual industry, with quality control and the like.  I don't think it's 
naive to think that - I think that's what we saw with alcohol when 
prohibition was repealed.  Sure, some people still make their own hooch 
at home (we've been known to make wine ourselves), but the vast majority 
comes from licensed establishments and sales venues, and there are pretty 
strict controls over the production of alcohol.

It's been done before, and the only thing stopping it from being done 
again is people who - as I said - try to assert that they have a moral 
imperative (and hence a moral superiority) to prohibit those substances, 
and I for one, thing that's total BS.

Jim

Post a reply to this message