Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Drugs; pro- or anti-legalization?

I'm against drug use because it's illegal, and a crime, and i am against crime. There are other reasons i'll state here as well.

First off, the most common reasonings in favor of legalization that i've heard have been 1) It's not up to the government to tell us what we can or can't do, 2) If it's not hurting anyone else, then what's the harm? 3) The only reason it's illegal is because the government can't track and tax the farming/use/sales of it, 4) It would reduce/eliminate the drug cartels, and lastly, 5) It would reduce crime, lower the amount of money going into the justice system, and increase our domestic product.

Now let me address these ideas;
1) It's not. No, that should be a personal conviction, just like beating the crap out of someone (refer to #2 for why i use this correlation) . . . We should know better than to do it. It should simply be common knowledge and instinct to not do things that kill us, just like with smoking and drinking. But no. There are millions of people who do things their body tells them not to.

2) Again, it should simply be common knowledge and instinct to not do things that kill us, just like with smoking and drinking. If it doesn't hurt others . . . That's the thing, though; it DOES. Just like alcohol and tobacco; alcohol claims 2.5 million lives each year. Those aren't just people who drink, but people whose judgement has been impaired by it. It probably takes less of most drugs to get someone 'buzzed' than it takes alcohol.
And smoking . . . I don't know how many lives that claims. Smokers aren't the only ones who get lung cancer from cigarettes; people around smokers do, too. Same thing goes for most drugs; the smoke/excess of them would affect others. That sense of logic is flawed and, sorry, downright stupid.
It would make drugs cheaper, so anyone could have them . . . That doesn't sound appealing to me, knowing that even more people would be intoxicated or under the influence of some sort of substance.

3) Sadly, that's true. It makes me sick to think that, if it has the same effects as alcohol does, that'd be another 2.5 million people worldwide if it was legal across the globe. And the government's only concern is cash. Revenue > lives. Lovely. It's depressing knowing that the government values you and i just a little less than money.

4) True. It would eliminate them, or at least reduce them. But then, once they were no longer running drugs, they'd run something else, just as has happened since boats were invented. It's human nature to want what we can't have. There have been smugglers since the beginning of countries' borders, and there will always be smugglers. As long as anything is illegal, they will run that product.
And i live just a few hours from the US/Mexico border, and there's said to be families of drug runners in Lake Jackson, a town about 15-20 minutes away from my home. I worry about alcoholics more than i worry about drug cartels. I would worry more about the influx of doped-up people roaming the streets (in vehicles, no less) if it were legal than i worry about drug cartels.

5) It would reduce crime. Personally, i think the best way to reduce crime is not to give in, but make the punishment so severe that it's no longer worth the risk of getting caught (why should criminals get access to the internet and tvs? Why is the American public paying for their luxuries? Why do the more vile inmates even get beds and chairs? It should be prison, not a stay at a fully furnished second-home). Like drunk driving--i think that should be attempted involuntary manslaughter . . . But that penalty does not exist and is only inside my head. Legalizing it for the sake of reducing crime is essentially surrendering morals because it seems the easy thing to do. It's not the wise choice, in my opinion.
And i understand that money used to have drug users arrested, tried, and incarcerated costs you and i both, but i would prefer some dopehead who can't see because so many of his brain cells have been burned out was sitting behind bars in his zombified state rather than piloting a 4,000 object traveling 60 mph past any combination of my spouse/parent/child/sibling/cousin/niece/nephew/grandparent/aunt/uncle/etc.

6) . . . If you have another reason, please message me on FB or Tumblr, comment on this, or send me an email at jos_h20@hotmail.com (please state in the subject it's regarding this blog or i probably won't even see it), and i'd be happy to discuss it.
If you're looking to argue, i'm not so naive as to think arguing online changes anyone's mind, so i refrain. If you want a legitimate conversation about it, though, just two people discussing it with reason, please do send me a message; i'd love to get more than the stereotypical reasons.


  1. Since 1971, when Richard Nixon declared "war on drugs", this country has spent trillions in drug law enforcement. It has whittled away everybody's rights against search and seizure to the point that if you happen to have $10,001 dollars in your pocket, it can be seized even if there are no drugs or no crimes committed and you have a reasonable explanation for that amount of cash in your pocket (as though you have to explain why you have your money in your pocket!) It has given us the basket case of Mexico to our south, ever teetering on the edge of complete dysfunction because of the drug cartels (that would not exist if drugs were legalized, ever hear of cotton cartels killing people?) and has been responsible for jailing more non violent offenders than any other crime.

    Do you know how that has changed the percentage of the population that do drugs now compared to the percentage that did drugs back then?

    Hasn't changed them at all. There are people who are going to do drugs no matter what, legal or not. There are people who simply will not do drugs, legal or not. There is very little traffic between the two groups.

    Legalize 80% of drugs, tax it, and use the tax revenue for rehabilitation for those that want to get off.

    1. Thanks for the comment!
      You present a lot of interesting facts--not just opinions (as most of my statements are merely that: opinion). I enjoy when people actually think their reasonings through like that.

      That's a good point about it not having changed the percentage. Even the prohibition didn't change much when it came to drinkers. People still drank. In fact, it made things worse as a whole. But the mafia it created still exists. They just run different stuff now.
      There have been smugglers before, there will be smugglers if drugs are legalized as well. They'll merely find something new to sneak across borders, just as they always have. So long as there's anything not legal, there will be people making a profit from it illegally.

      I live in southeast Texas, and i've visited towns so close to the border that English was optional. People there didn't seem as messed up because of cartels as the media portrays.

      I do know people who would do drugs if they were legal, but don't because they're not. They are of that minute demographic you mentioned, but i do know some that it's the laws keeping them from it.

      I'm jumping into unrelated ground here (i see alcohol on the same level as any other mind-altering drug, so i correlate much between them), but i know that 2,800 people died in the WTC towers on 9/11/01. That's less than half of the amount that died that day from alcohol alone (an estimated daily toll of 6,850).
      I want anything that could be done to be done to make sure that lowers, or at least doesn't rise, even if it's not very effective at it. Same goes for any kind of mind-altering drug; anything that keeps the human death-toll caused by it from rising is worth every dollar to me.

      As with any substance that affects the brain, i'm always going to do my best to make sure my family never becomes part of a statistic related to it. If that meant that, to keep a war going on against it (regardless of how much good it was actually doing), i had to surrender a higher percentage of my income to the government, i'd do so.

      More revenue could be generated if the legal drinking age was lowered to 18 . . . Then again, it's "estimated" that 1,000 crashes involving 18-20 year old people are prevented because it's at 21.

      The tax revenue for rehab thing is a great idea--i'm opposed to legalizing any kind of mind-altering substances to get that revenue, though.

  2. sending you a message on faceboook k,,,love youuuuu