4 ms·
> He's empowering others to destroy their lives, which very often leads to more crime as addicts will steal or even kill for their next fix. What about alcohol
by reverend_gonzo 12y ago
> He's empowering others to destroy their lives, which very often leads to more crime as addicts will steal or even kill for their next fix.
What about alcohol? Cigarettes? Poker? Penny stocks?
All of these things have contributed to people blowing their savings, futures, and ruining their own lives and their families' lives.
By criminalizing drugs, people who want to fix their behavior are unable to because they're afraid to go to jail.
What we need is support centers, like we have for alcoholics, gambling addicts, sex addicts, internet addicts, and addicts of any other kind. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol in the 20s, and it hasn't worked for drugs.
- _broody 12y agoI agree. Social campaigning will be much more effective than prohibition, that's what we do for legal drugs which also are devastating for addicts. Prohibition does absolutely nothing to control drug demand. It makes the supply swell until it overruns law enforcement's efforts to stem it. It makes hard drugs with stronger effects for a small dose more profitable for smugglers, because they're easier to ship. And as American alcohol Prohibitionism showed in the 20s, it makes drugs more popular among the underaged.
- bjourne 12y agoWhat's this argument that if N vices are legal, then N+1 vices should be legal too? Yes, it's true that alcohol can ruin your life, but that fact is not a good argument for legalizing heroin.
- mercurial 12y agoIt depends how you read it. If proponents of banning a drug (say, marijuana) argue that it should be banned because it is harmful and will threaten the fabric of society (or something), while more dangerous drugs are legally and readily available, and have failed to destroy society, parent's argument is reasonable.