3 ms·
It surely wouldn't be good for American society, but at least it's a choice for those who decide to use those substances. As it stands, the prohibition on drug
by semiotagonal 7y ago
It surely wouldn't be good for American society, but at least it's a choice for those who decide to use those substances.
As it stands, the prohibition on drugs has created a business that many find worth resorting to violence over, and it impacts people in Mexico who would never have chosen to get involved.
There's no good answer here, but letting addicts drop out of society and damage their health with legal drugs seems more moral than banning drugs and having bystanders suffer.
- ergothus 7y agoYou are skipping the audience that ARENT life-destroying addicts, such as the target of the article. The fact that researchers can barely study schedule 1 drugs to determine if they should BE scheduled 1 drugs is a big red flag. The disproportionate response, the people sent to jail for minor offenses, the....well, all the points in the post you are replying to that you didnt address. How can you stick to your claims of morality if you don't consider ALL the impacts?
- semiotagonal 7y agoI'm arguing in favor of legalization, not against it. In my estimation legalization means more addicts, a greater burden of addiction for society, fewer people in jail, and fewer bystanders hurt by the business. On balance it's the more moral choice, because for the most part those who end up experiencing the negative effects are doing so by choice, and dealing with legal addicts is preferable to dealing with illegal enterprises. tl;dr Legalization makes sense, because even though more people end up negatively impacted, they are generally only hurting themselves.