Yeah, they'll stay in school. They'll be too stoned to understand what the hell the professor is talking about, but they'll be there.
Patently false. In graduate school those who partook in marijuana (I knew, because there were only 13 1st year physics graduate students that year and I knew them all pretty well) did as well as or better than I did, sad to admit.
So by legalizing it, the drug dealers won't care about other dealers on their turf anymore? Again, the dealers aren't going to shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. Let's go back and get our diplomas."
What drug dealers? You mean Walgreens and CVS? Or the few remaining idiots stupid enough to think they can compete with those two. Tell me, where are all the thriving mom and pop drugstores? Are they rampant? Nope. They are hard to find these days. They cannot compete with the big boys. Neither will black market drug dealers. Sure, there will be some. But not many. The market works the same way for every product.
How exactly is a junkie going through withdrawl, considered 'able bodied'.
He isn't going through withdrawl if he can legally buy his drug needs at reasonable cost.
Quote:
ARE YOU qualified to tell ME what I should or shouldn't do with MY body????? Sounds AWEFULLY CONTRARY to what our forefathers would have to say on the matter....
Maybe not, as long as what you do to your body doesn't wind up costing me my tax dollars or my life. Can you guarantee that you will always make the smart choice while slamming an 8 ball? And somehow, I don't think our founding fathers were very enthusiastic about creating a better country and a better way of life, through drug use. That argument cannot be used in every debate in regards to today's problems. I'm pretty sure that drug enforcement was the furthest thing from their minds.
Some of them are alleged to have used drugs. As for costing you tax dollars or your life, why don't you spout the same poisonous lies aimed at alcohol?
Quote:
The driver with the marijuana laced with PCP... did he KNOW the impurities of his drugs?
Ignorance is not a defense under the law.
But that wasn't the flavor of the question. The question, I am sure, was intended to point out that if Dow or Ivax made the drugs, he WOULD have had the opportunity to know the quality and the event might never have happened.
Quote:
I propose a regulated standard.
For crack dealers!? They don't follow the law as it is, what makes you think they'll follow a standard?
Alcohol manufacturers and sellers do. They once didn't.
Quote:
If drugs were available at the Walgreens on the corner he might not have needed to drive 10 miles across town.
Alcohol is available at the walgreens on the corner. How come then people still kill people while driving drunk? It's called personal RESPONSIBILITY, NOT personal FREEDOM.
So why are you not trying to prohibit alcohol once again?
Quote:
We can't afford this ineffective, inefficient losing war on drugs because it doesn't work, it will never work, and it is too expensive.
True, the current solution is not working. So we just give up? We just give criminals like Juan what they want? Or do we find something that does work, like executing drug importers, runners, and dealers on the spot. That might prove effective. Of course we can't do that, because it impacts their personal freedoms.
No. Transfer the profits from "Juan", who lacks quality control, to Pfizer, who maintains excellent quality control.
Quote:
So if a gun owner makes a mistake, has an AD/ND and winds up shooting himself in the neck should he simply be allowed to die because he made a stupid mistake? If you were woodworking an managed to chop your finger off on a saw should you be turned away from the emergency room because you chose to use a potentially dangerous tool?
Maybe a valid point. But how much tax payer money is spent to pay for these treatments? How much is spent on illegal drug emergency care and treatment? I'll bet the numbers are vastly different.
The point here is that society pays alot more for illegal drug use through taxes than it does for personal mishaps.
It's my understanding that falls in the home are the leading cause of accidental death. Simple falls. And that accidents in the home resulting in death far outstrip drug deaths. So somehow I doubt the veracity of that last set of statements.
Quote:
If your child was at a party and drank so much that he or she began suffering from alcohol poisoning should the paramedics simply shrug and walk off?
Maybe, might sound harsh or cruel
"Sick" is a better word.
but I'll bet it leaves a lasting impression on the other party goers. Again though, the cost to tax payers for that example isn't close to what it costs for illegal drug use and treatment. I guess a good solution to that is, if you get sick through illegal activities, you should have to pay for your treatment and healthcare, UP FRONT. No pay, no save. You don't want your child to have to face that, then make sure you know what they're doing. That's your job as a parent.
An entire juvenile justice system exists nationwide because society does NOT share your philosophy in this regard.
Quote:
I might go along with legalizing drugs if it were accompanied by changes in jurisprudence. Someone using drugs wanders into traffic and gets retreaded should be looked at as suicide.
Let a judge decide.
Have a car accident while using drugs means a permanent loss of your license.
Make the penalty the same for alcohol and OK.
A citizen defending themselves against someone on drugs has no civil liability to the drug user or relatives.
We already have that in Florida.
+1 to that. More personal responsibility, less codling and second chances. Then you can have all the drugs you want.
Well, to use another poster's example. The founding fathers might disagree with you on that. Since they came here looking for religious freedom. With Christianity as the founding religion of this country, so are we a Christian nation.
Let's see. The nation from which they came had, as a national religion, Christianity. So it looks to me like they were fleeing control of a government entwined with none other than Christianity. Perhaps I have a better feel for what the FFs had in mind than you do.
But that's not what my remark was about. When you're not sure who's to blame for an otherwise unexplainable situation, follow the money. Who would lose the most money if drugs were widely used? Preachers would, because some drugs change the way a person thinks. They make it harder to adhere to dogma. This would reduce people's participation in religion. That would cut back on subsidies to clergymen. They would have to go find their little boys to abuse somewhere else.
So, you could argue about 'personal freedoms' till your blue in the face. The point is, is enabling more wide spread drug use going to be beneficial, or detrimental to society? There is no BoR, no constitution, and no freedom, if there is no society.
_
This argument presumes that drug use will destroy society. It didn't before prohibition, so it won't today. It will probably throw a wrench into religious indoctrination. Oh well, if religion can't compete, then it can't.
