Drug dealers currently sell drugs to kids, right? Why should we believe that they would stop if it became easier for a drug dealer to get drugs?

This is an anti-humanitarian philosophy. It's just saying: fuck people. I don't agree with the philosophy of "fuck people."


WEB

__________________
"Of course the fact that a person believes in racial equality doesn't prove that he's a communist...but it certainly makes you look twice, doesn't it? You can't get away from the fact that racial equality is part of the communist line." - Joseph McCarthy

Political Forum Diplomacy Game Map (In Progress)
Current Diplomacy thread

WEB,

I apologize. I thought you were speaking generally in the JOE scenerio. Yes he will probably still get from wal-mart and sell to kids. But I bet the bulk of his business right now is from adults. And if he was religated to just selling to kids then he may not stay in the business. I do not however think that keeping it illegal is anyway keeping it out of kids hands.

And with regard to my anti-humanitarian philosophy, I am not saying "fuck-people", I am saying fuck people who have such a lack of will power that they choose to destroy their own mind and body for a quick high. It is in-humane to the rest of us to keep them alive to drain our resources and pollute the gene pool.

It's like abortion: their bodies = their choices. If they want to fuck themselves up with coke and meth, then let them. Most people, including minors, who want drugs will get them, law or no law.

Why would we have drug dealers selling drugs at outrageous prices when corporations will be able to manufacture and sell them at a fraction of the cost? The taking of drugs is free choice. The only real argument a person could have against legalization is "save the irresponsible idiots". Which we don't need any more of. The welfare state also doesn't help.

Legal abortion kills a fetus too immature to be a person. Illegal drugs kill people.Or "save the people who haven't learned yet" or "save the people who might make one self-destructive decision" or otherwise "save the people who would regret it later anyway." We don't let people kill themselves just because they don't know better. That's a useless, meaningless level of freedom.

At any rate, all of the same positives could be accomplished by rounding up hardcore addicts and selling them clean drugs, without the social Darwinist element.That's priceless.

__________________
"I have nothing new to teach the world." -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi

No, basing laws on irresponsibility which causes many many problems is what is useless and meaningless. People aren't just going to quit because they are illegal. How is it any different when they are legal? Oh yes, society would go straight to hell because the streets would be filled with "druggies". After all, everybody I know would just love to do crack or heroin but is just waiting for the laws to change.

You know what I mean.

Useless or not, it's still a freedom regardless. The government's job is not to protect you from you.

And others would appear. Drug legalization and drug illegalization both have positive and negative aspects. Neither is a magic bullet to make life trouble free.

__________________
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
— Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

I think that if our "leaders" are going to continue to run this country into the ground, the least they can do is allow us ( Ha, did anyone catch that? the government should allow us.... what the fuck happened?) to be inebriated by our choice of chemical to make the crash all the more bearable. Not to say that we are not to blame also, but.....

__________________
Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars. ... I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask no one to live for me, nor do I live for others. I covet no mans soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.

Ayn Rand, Anthem.

No, they aren't, because most of the drugs are addictive. It's not just an every day choice to quit a drug like that; a kid might get into it for the rebellious feel or because the high is supposed to be good, but getting out is obviously different. How do you let someone choose to practically enslave themselves? (Can a free society have slaves?) Is a person honestly choosing that path, or is it more likely most people don't realize beforehand?It's different because the government would have no basis to help addicts, because dealership would be mainstream (ever wonder why cigarettes aren't out of fashion?), because more people would try hard drugs, and because parents would have a lot more trouble protecting their kids.Is the power to hurt both themselves and society, with no potential for benefit, something the government should assume people want? Regardless, the government is not protecting people from themselves; it is protecting people from chemicals. Do you think the average person even understands what Advil does to them? The average person can't be expected to read up on all of the medical information behind a drug; I know I never have, just summaries. That's why we have the system of prescription. Is your idea that people should just be able to go out on a whim and pick medicine based on the ad? Trust the free market to decide what a substance really does to you?

__________________
"I have nothing new to teach the world." -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi