Except it would be quite wrong. There is an upside to gun ownership, it allows innocents to more effectively resist attempts on their lives and property. Drugs... why? So you can fly into orbit every weekend? Drugs are far easier to OD on than alcohol and have a far wider variety of problems... for example, I don't have any idea if I'm allergic to pot smoke or not, but if I am, I'd rather not find out the hard way. As for hookers, gotta catch 'em all! STDs, that is. Yes, there are tests that identify STDs. No, they don't detect quickly enough.
Should we outlaw peanuts then? What if someone has peanut butter and doesn't know if they're allergic to them? I'd rather not find out the hard way. As far as hookers go, I wouldn't want to get an STD, so I wouldn't have sex with a hooker, bottom line. But I don't care if someone else wants to, it's their life, and their decision. Just to clear things up about guns, I do agree with you. I hunt, we have guns in my house, I shoot skeet and trap for sport, and I've grown up around guns all my life, I am completely for gun ownership being legal. However, you can really make the same arguments for guns being illegal as drugs, not saying they're valid arguments for guns, but they also aren't valid arguments for drugs.
Yeah, I meant to say Illegal in Alaska.
Well good for them then! I never planned on going near the place anyway... guess I'll have to stay away until I get tested for pot allergies, lest I breathe the results of someone's party and go into shock.
I can't imagine weed would be legal on public property. Also, that logic could apply to anything. I feel sick (and usually throw up) from even smelling scallops cooking in a pan, does that mean that restaurants shouldn't be allowed to serve them? Of course not. I do with scallops what you should do with weed, should it become illegal, since it will only be legal in private places, don't enter a private place that allows it, there's also next to no chance anyone will ever be allowed to legally smoke weed in a restaurant or anything other than a private home.
If it were to become legal, the problem would become even more widespread, as people who previously weren't willing to risk their freedom and cash to try it will have no more reason to fear legal issues.
Sure, there could be a few more people who use it. But how many people would run out and try heroin if it were legal tomorrow? Honestly? Not many. Marijuana use would rise pretty quickly I'd imagine, but cocaine, heroin, etc etc, I can't imagine there'd be a massive influx of users. Also, the "problem" would probably be not as widespread. Right now, people who are addicted to hard drugs are chucked in jail and treated as criminals rather than sick people. Here's an article on how decriminalization in Portugal has gone.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...ocId=CNG.e740b6d0077ba8c28f6d1dd931c6f679.5e1
Depends. If the laws limited the strength of heroin to reduce the possibility of an OD, previous addicts - and probably some new ones too - would still want stronger drugs... that only the gangs and cartels would be able to provide. They might not do as much business as they are now, but they'd still be shooting each other up. So legalizing heroin would non-solve that problem and make another worse.
That's a possibility, but again, the problem with hard drug addiction right now is that there's no way to get help without exposing yourself and getting tossed in jail for years. I still find it hard to believe that the cartels would stay in business, regardless of how much more potent their heroin could be. Think of how cheap Coca-Cola is. Would you pay %500 more for Coca-Cola with more caffeine in it? I would imagine that buying more potent heroin from a dealer would be insanely expensive, as all of their demand would be gone. Almost anyone who would want heroin would be more than happy to get it from the legal methods of production, because it will be so much cheaper.
Indeed, enforcement would be a definite problem, and an underground market will remain.
A very tiny underground market may remain, but that's certainly not better than allowing the massive, violent, destructive, and bloody drug market we have today.
If abortion must remain legal, however, I still favor laws requiring the clinic to provide an ultrasound of the baby before providing an abortion. Many, many women have had a change of heart and decided to go through with the pregnancy after seeing one. Still many more had an abortion because they were pressured or they thought they didn't have a choice, many of them regret it today.
Again, this is really hypocritical. What happened to "who are the government to tell me I need insurance?" What about someone else who would say "who are the government to tell me I need an ultrasound?" Why is one logically different than the other? You can't be upset with the government intruding in to your life in some aspects, yet want them to intrude on someone else's life because of something you deem immoral.
Objection: I still maintain there are many ways drugs are more dangerous than alcohol, from the fumes of some drugs to the potentially different (and possibly unpredicatble) effects of others.
I'd agree, hard drugs are worse for you than Alcohol. However, in the long run I find it very hard to believe that Marijuana is worse for you than Alcohol or tobacco. Has anyone ever OD'd on Marijuana? Has anyone ever got high, come home and beat their wife? I don't think so. Not that I'm advocating it either, but it's definitely safer to drive high than drunk.
http://www.thecarconnection.com/new...h-vs-getting-hammered-which-is-more-dangerous
EDIT: I also want to reiterate, I don't smoke tobacco or weed, and I hardly ever drink.
Really? (And yes, that link has 3 pages)
