I thought if people weren't selling/pushing drugs, people probably wouldn't get addicted?
No, you're advocating killing people to stifle access to drugs, which only drives it further underground. Unless you think you can wipe out the entire supply chain you're only making things worse. Given that no country has actually managed to cut of the supply of drugs, despite enormous amounts of money spent trying, I think it's fair to say at this point that it's damn near impossible.
Hell, for some drugs it is damn near impossible. You know why alcohol isn't illegal? Because it's so easy to make that it's not even funny. Any idiot with sugar, water, and a jar can make alcohol.
You guys are right, lets make it fully legal, so no one can be in a fit state of mind or body to make a worthwhile contribution to society.
No, let's make it legal and control it, instead of forcing the sales and management into the hands of people who are demonstrably willing to harm their customers for a quick buck.
And talk about your strawmen. Having drugs available absolutely does not mean everyone suddenly becomes incapable of contributing to society.
I seem to recall that things under Prohibition in the States were decidedly worse than when alcohol was freely available. California and Amsterdam haven't turned into cesspools of people smoking themselves into oblivion. There are plenty of cases proving your strawman wrong.
Sounds like a great idea. Kind of like saying people can get as drunk as they like, wont cause any harm, right?
That's what we have now. We hold people accountable for any harm they do while drunk, just as we would when they're not drunk. We don't arrest them simply for being drunk.
I think it's pretty clear that you don't trust people enough to be responsible for actions that affect only themselves. You somehow feel the need to tell them what they can or can't do to their own bodies.
Tobacco, totally legal, no harm done, right? Wake up.
No harm to society, no. If people want to smoke, best of luck to them. We have rules now so that smokers don't impinge on the rights of people who don't want to be subjected to second hand smoke, but that's about it.
We need less poisons available, not more.
Many medicines are poisons. Do you want to do away with them too?
Important parts of your diet are poisonous if taken in large enough quantities. Alcohol is not a poison if taken in moderate quantities (it can be quite beneficial to health), but is deadly if too much is taken at once. How would you personally draw the line as to what is a poison that we need less of, and what is useful?
Driving a car comes with an attendant risk of injury or death, but many people do it anyway for convenience or simply for pleasure. Why are drugs different to any other activity that could be considered dangerous if done improperly?
Feel free to skip the passive-aggressive answers this time and simply have a debate. There's an interesting discussion to be had here without you taking cheap shots.
I struggle to see how a death sentence is justified for most (if any) of that stuff. Unless you think heroin dealers run around sticking needles in random people you should be aware that they're stupid enough to choose it themselves. If they don't know the risks then the action that should be taken is in education, because heroin dealers won't stop so long as it's profitable.
