... in response to Drugs & Singapore, posted by markxport on Mar 21, 2002I guess that would be one solution.It might work,but is this what we want in a supposedly free society,killing people for using drugs?Or just killing them for selling them?We don't even kill people for killing people most of the time.Cutting peoples hands off for stealing is probably effective too.But is it just?
How about the drug user who doesn't bother anybody,buys his drugs and goes home and uses them.Does he deserve to have someone breaking down his door and hauling him off in handcuffs,let alone killing him?I think not.
Why is it so important to protect people from themselves?Or is it that some people are so strait laced that they think that they know better than someone else what is best for them.It drives me nuts,as a republican,that the same people I support who talk so much about freedom would like to take yours for something as simple as smoking a joint.
Off course the real fear here is that more people will get hooked on things like crack cocaine,which it has been said you can become addicted to in one use.If the government was the supplier they might be able to control it to give it to people already hooked but not have a supply for new users.I would rather let people kill themselves than have the government do it for them.Yes people would kill thereselves.They do now.You either get smart or die.What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
Then there is the issue of crime to support drug use.And huge profits from dealing drugs.Making something illegal does not make it unavailable,just more expemsive.I really think this would be less if the government sold it at a lessor price and tried to keep it away from kids.Plus there would be no drug business,the real problem,where gangs kill each other over market turf,and young kids learn to make a quick buck instead of getting a real job.There are one million,yes one million,young black men in prison over drug related crimes.What a shame plus expense.
People just line up in separate camps over this.There was an article back when Reagan was president that marijuana wasn't likely to be legalized because when Ronnie was a kid they didn't smoke pot.I raised this issue at a party with my brother in law and his friend,both heavy alcohol users.They just didn't get it and got real defensive.Its ok to get blitzed on booze,but don't smoke a joint.The difference is both will get you high,alcohol will destroy your body.
Sigh,ain't going to happen soon.More kids in prison,100 billion or so heading overseas to pay for drugs,another 100 billion or so spent on the war on drugs and prisons.Really screwing up other countries.Drug money going to terrorists.And this is the home of the brave and the land of the free?
I love this country,I really do,but some of these policies drive me nuts.Bush says if you use drugs you are a terrorist,or something like that.I give him credit for figuring out he couldn't handle alcohol and giving it up.But does he have to be so hard on everyone else?
Sometimes it just takes a huge amount of negative experience to finally wake up.Like all the BS Colombia has and is tolerating from the FARC and other groups.I guess they haven't had quite enough yet.And neither have we.
Pete
