I'm writing a thesis for my english class on why all drugs should be legalized and put on the same level as cigarettes and alcohol (sold, but regulated and taxed accordingly). How do you feel about this? Before you go on a rant saying ALLDRUGSRB4DL0LZ0RZ, remember that the war against them is costing money, and the fact that drugs have been forced into the black market means that screw-overs and rip-offs are handled with violence and murder, rather than in courtrooms. I have more reasons, but I'll wait for the masses to project their opinions.
I really don't care about what happens with them. I'll never do them, because I've been an alcoholic, and I know what it's like to have an addiction. It's not a good feeling.
On the main page, however, we have another thread just like this one. I don't see how you missed it.
lo, that's nothing like my topic. I read the first post, and hes just asking why people ruin their lives with drugs, while I'm making an argument for legalizing them. In fact, I got the idea to make this when I saw the post.
Yes, granted, they're not exactly alike, but they still have the same title and roughly very similar subjects, so if you're going to keep this thread alive, at least distinguish one from the other. It's bound to confuse many users if there are two threads running with the same title.
I don't like it that people's excuses to have drugs legalized are because Cigs/Alcohol is. Hey, we have something harmful allowed, so let's let every other harmful thing in. (even I've come across) Oh wait, they're not harmful. The government is just sending false data to stop drugs.
is costing money, and the fact that drugs have been forced into the black market means that screw-overs and rip-offs are handled with violence and murder
Addiction doesn't cause violence at all. (*gets ready for MaryJ advocates* Illegal drugs include cocaine, meth, etc.) Neither does drug-induced states.
rather than in courtrooms.
Courtrooms are free, right? Prisons aren't crowded nor paid for, right?
Good idea to think of counter-arguments for your thesis. :b
I wasn't sure if you were agreeing or sarcastically arguing. To be honest, I don't understand yor second argument at all. But for your first one, you're correct that it does cause violence, However, making these drugs illegal doesn't warrant less addiction.
Also, I don't need help with my thesis, I only want to start a debate
you would think so, but not as much as you'd think. Don't forget that illegalizing means people are more afraid to go to rehabs, as well as make them more ashamed. So yes, technically less availability means less addiction, but it also means less people are willing to come out. Also, don't forget that these drugs are still easily available, just in shadier, dangerous places instead of pharmacies and drug stores.
Second paragraph? Addiction + Drug induced states = violence.
Smoking is made illegal in buildings because its harmful to others. For this same reason, if drugs were made legal (and the effects of these drugs made known) then addicts and drug-induced people could be more easily recognized and sent home or moved from the premises.
By "all drugs" do you mean every substance taken recreationally (minus, I guess, prescription medications)? Would take include Cocaine, Ecstasy, LSD, and Heroine? This is pretty radical claim and before I can reply I think you should give some stronger arguments. Of the people who want just pot legalized, I'd say far less than 1 percent of those people would even consider your position. It looks like your arguments for it are that stopping illegal drug distribution costs money, and that the environment creates a violent atmosphere. To the first point: stopping any crime costs money. While this may seem trivial, the same argument could be applied to any heinous crime. It costs money to stop it, so it should be legalized and regulated. I don't see how this is going to fly. The expense argument works in the case of marijuana because those who are arguing for it don't consider it to be a harmful substance - at least not as harmful as tobacco or alcohol. But there's just no way to argue that hard drugs aren't harmful. As for the violence associated with drug sales - have you considered the notion that the violence might simply stem from the fact that these people are on hard drugs? Legalizing drugs like crack or heroine aren't going to cut down on the level of violent acts. So, I dunno. I'm not trying to be mean here, but if this is what you're going to argue for your thesis, I'd reconsider. It's just not tenable, except for maybe in some purely theoretical ... no, nevermind. It's just not tenable.
