Currently Online 
| snyps said:
None of that happened after alchohol prohibition ended in 1933. What makes this different? |
My, my, you are an idealist, aren't you.
I know it's impossible to ban alcohol completely. And I also admit I use it regularly. It's good stuff. However, stop and think for a moment. How exactly alcohol benefits society as a whole, as opposed to it basically not existing? How many women were beaten due to alcohol? How many transit accidents happened due to alcohol? How many dollars were spent on healthcare and social programs due to alcohol? Am I entitled to a pleasure whose mere existence already decreases social indicators by a huge deal?
Oftentimes the only argument left is that you would end with illegal drug traffic (assuming we are already over that stuff someone would get to prision for merely being a consumer). And even that one is flawed, because it is based on the assumption legal drug sale somehow wouldn't involve addicts going to the lengths of robbing and theft to acquire money, and that the existing smugglers are going to magically straighten up and leave criminal live behind them if find out they can't absolutely compete.
The argument for absolute legalization is a nirvana fallacy, really.
However... I guess a point could be made for the legalization of really weak stuff like Khat for recreational use. Banning it and making a contravention to use it could potentially lead up to false, adulterated samples, more dangerous than the thing itself.
