Posted by MH on April 11, 2002 at 14:06:36:
In Reply to: Re: OK posted by Marcus on April 11, 2002 at 12:41:50:
> Your theories are flawed because your assumptions are too large. Drugs are no more addictive whether they are legal or not legal. What makes you so sure there would be more addicts if drugs were legalized?
It's not the 'addictiveness' that would change, it's the availability. You would see the same phenomenom if they were to lower the drinking age to 18. You would end up with a generation of young people who were alcoholics only because they could now do something legally that had always been frowned upon. It wouldn't be the overall number of users, it would be the excesses of use.
> I know that your assumption is more people will use drugs, but how do come to that conclusion? Studies have shown few people abstain from drug use because it is illegal.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. It's more a moral and ethical choice to abstain but I bet there are a least a few out there who would (and do) abstain because they do not want to risk their futures.
> Also, countries with more liberal drug policies typically have a smaller percentage of drug users than in the U.S.
Again, to my first point, drug use isn't that big of a deal within these societies, therefore there isn't such a 'glamour' associated with use. Just look at Germany with beer - kids drink it but it's not a big deal to them, therefore they don't overdo it.
> In addition, even with gov't taxes the cost of drugs would be greatly reduced. The competitive open market dictates that. It isn't like these products are expensive to produce. Alcohol and Tobacco are relatively affordable despite markups of 35-80% because of taxes.
Ahh, but were NOT talking about a true competitive market. Regulation prohibits this.
> People typically do not have to resort to such extreme measures as robbery to support those habits. Why would other drugs be any different?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe it's because mose of the other drugs are MUCH more addictive - I'm sure we can agree that heroin could make a person do things that tobacco wouldn't.
The argument that has always cracked me up is that pot isn't an addictive substance yet most of the people I know who use the drug, use it on a daily basis. Most of the drinkers that I know will go for a least one or two days without a drink. I've seen many a 'report' with claims about the wonderfulness of pot vs alcohol. But reports, surveys and the like can all be manipulated in many ways to either prove/disprove different theories. Many of these reports/arguments are just attempts for potheads to give themselves a 'pat on the back' because they are doing what they 'believe' is right.
Recreational marijuana use is currently against the law. If you use it, you are breaking the law. You may not agree with it but you are going against society.