Look, you see it one way, I see it another. I\'m not going to search the internet for data to support my case, but it\'s a given that heroin, cocain and crack are highly addictive drugs.
Alcohol causes more deaths because it is legal and more readily available.
As for your other examples, your probably statistically correct, but how many unreported deaths or missing persons are related to drugs.
I agree that some drugs are not as bad as other, but to legalize all drugs is crazy and irresponsible. Just my opinion. I really don\'t think that you will ever see a government that is willing to legalize all drugs, so it basically a mute point.
It doesn\'t make sence to ignore the differences of these substances and lump them all together under the category of drugs, and then say either, "all drugs should be legal," or "all drugs should be illegal." It seems very obvious to me which of these substances are dangerous to peoples heath and dangerous to society as a whole, vs. which of these substances are fairly benign (and actually may have great benefits to soceity as a whole). I\'m all for decriminalization of marijuana, but I\'m definately against legalizing or decriminalizing ****/crack/herion/meth. Do I think addicts should be locked up? No, they should get help in rehab programs. Should dealers of heroin/meth/crack be locked up? Yea, probably. If that makes me a hypocrite oh fuckin\' well, I just don\'t see this issue to be that black and white.
First of all **** and crack are the same drug. They are both the same alkaloid they are just delivered to the body in different ways. Think smoking weed v. eating it. Yes they are highly addictive, so is alcohol, so are lots of legal substances. Cigarettes for example. Also amphetamines are class 2 so according to our government it is less dangerous than pot and actually has some medical benefit so think on that for a minute. Same is true of ****.
So your basically saying that your beliefs are not rooted in fact. That is wonderful. So you will just willynilly regurgitate whatever thoughts got in to your head first. Alcohol is a poison to the body plain and simple. If it was going to be scheduled as the other drugs are it would be schedule 1. So the government has no problem allowing the citizens of this country to choose to use this drug. So why should it draw the line on others that are less or even as potentially harmful ?
So how many unreported deaths are due to alcohol, and missing persons ? not sure where your going with that. And to which extent are those issues you describe related to dealing with criminals.
What is really irresponsible, continuing down a path that does not work, locks up people for victimless crimes and cost us taxpayers billions a year or to a least remove the criminal element from the equation, tax the substances heavily, and allow people to do what they want without interference from the government ? I choose the later.
I\'m not sure which parts of my post you are responding to and what parts of Yoda\'s you are responding to but i\'ll just try and adresss some of the points you made.
You can\'t tell me meth is less dangerous than weed. I don\'t care what "schedule" our government classifies it as. It seems pretty obvious to me that weed is less dangerous and it makes no sence for weed to be classified as worse than meth or coke. Yes amphetamines have medical uses and should continue to be available in hospitals for people who need the drug for medical use. But street meth should remain illegal, and should be considered more dangerous. What is the criteria for categorizing drugs into schedule 1, 2, or 3? Is it based on whether or not there is a medical use for the drug? Although our government denies that there are any medical benefits to marijuana, I believe there are, such as: Reducing the nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite caused by AIDS and by various AIDS medications (and chemo), reducing interlobular pressure, thereby alleviating the pain and slowing -- and sometimes stopping -- the progress of Glaucoma. Also, marijuana can limit the muscle pain and spasticity caused by the multiple sclerosis, as well as relieving tremor and unsteadiness of gait.
Aaanyways, The other part of your post I want to address is the victimless crime part. I don\'t believe selling heroin/crack/meth = a victimless crime. People who sell these highly addictive drugs are taking advantage of the weak wills of others who have a disease called addiction (or their trying to support their own addictions). Many people\'s lives are ruined by hard drugs (and yes, alcohol). I just don\'t believe that the same is true for weed. :shrug:
