So basically this is saying that alcohol is more harmful than heroin and crack. I'm not interested in evaluating if that's true, so for the sake of argument I'll assume it is.
Tbh, in my ideal society, alcohol is banned. It's a poison and drunk driving deaths are a travesty that's far too common. However, it's clear that Prohibition doesn't work in the West. On the other hand, that has no relevance to the ban on hard drugs. The reason alcohol can't be banned is because people are accustomed to it and can't let go. The same can't be said for coke, as the vast majority are scared of it and aren't hooked. If the legal barriers are taken away, then there'll be an epidemic of addiction and it'd reach the point where coke could no longer be feasibly prohibited. Even if drink is worse, there's no reason to have 2 or 3 or 4 ills in society taking over.
Ayden Adams
If that's the reason, then how come the drug prohibition didn't work either? You can't say that people are accustomed to weed and crack and can't let it go.
Furthermore, your argument that legalizing it would lead to an explosion in use is PURE IDEOLOGY.
Zachary Sanders
Poor methods, intentionally going after innocent minorities while letting rich whites go, etc
- Adult usage of weed nearly doubled - Traffic fatalities where they tested positive for THC increased by 44%
Nolan Taylor
if you wanted to produce for yourself that wasn't the point, it's about drug dealers and their supporters
Tyler Bell
Most people who use crack (or any other drug) don't look like they use it at all.
The reason crackheads exist is poverty. Period.
Ryder Thomas
Prohibition doesn't work anywhere. What works is looking at two things (not just one of them): How much is an attempt to forget their circumstances that they really can't do anything about (i.e some form of alienation from the rest of society, typically related to financial issues and a horribly inequal distribution system of goods, resources, etc.) - and secondly; how much is merely a mixture of circumstances that are not mallable by humanity (life weariness), alongside a fairly common drive (amongst all cultures, and all forms of economies) to seek recreational use of drugs - for pleasure or a more positive-like escapism.
The former we can alter, and do something about. Make a society that best accomodates all within it. The latter needs to be looked at and accepted, it's how it is. Education surrounding the various substances and their effects, should be readily available. Some percentage of the populace will develop physical addictions, it will need treatment. It's managable. There is no perfect harmony, there are things that we can change the conditions for and then there are things that must be seen as a part of the human condition. Taking the denial approach towards it has you stamping out that which continues to occur in perpetuity, and will require massive state enforcement - in the most violent manner. If that is the approach you want to take, I'd suggest you think through the implications that creating and then leaving such an enforcement system in place would have on the rest of society. Suddenly you have a whole other problem - and you're rolling down the hill of absolute rulership.
Realistically, the "epidemics" are not happening due to that fairly small statistical dot of people that might become addicted, they happen for trade and commercial interests usually in the awkward marriage of clandestine war and destabilization agendas alongside the black market mob. It's in other words a symptom of today that is being seen that even in its 'unguided' state is caused by mostly unrelated circumstances (the drug, whichever it is, rationally or not - seen as a solution), when it's not a fire intentionally fuelled by both state and opportunistic capitalists for a mixture of wider strategic goals (or off the record funding for such operations) - and money. Lots, and lots and lots of money.
If in the perfect society that you wish, you would have SWAT teams to raid houses brewing their own beer, you can honestly go fuck yourself.
William Russell
And what was the total increase in number of cases? That means jack shit if there were actually just three cases total. Likewise, you'd need to look at the total number of THC crash fatalities over several years to try and see how that fits into the overall trend, and even then you're not safe from a spurious correlation.
Secondly, how do you know that the report represents an actual uptick and not the fact that we're seeing more of the dark figure of actual use now that it's legal?
Lastly, marijuana isn't directly comparable to something like cocaine or heroin, as most people know that marijuana isn't particularly harmful or addictive and wouldn't mind giving it a if there was no risk. On the other hand, people are well aware of the risks related to cocaine and heroin, and I seriously doubt that your average 55-year-old female florist is going to say "you know, I've always been curious about smoking crack, and if it wasn't illegal I'd probably give it a try." On the other hand, that's the exact sort of thought process lots of people have regarding weed.
More fundamentally, though, using violence to keep people from doing things you perceive as harmful to them but harms nobody else strikes me as stupid and authoritarian. Why should I follow a system that keeps me from following my own egoist self-interest and doing shitloads of heroin as I die of old age?
Nicholas Taylor
Wrong. Did you even fucking read your own link?
It rose 5%. Your spin is disgusting, especially as it's so brazen.
