7 ms·
You 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 drug
by ergothus 7y ago
You 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.