?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Comments

( 3 comments — Leave a comment )
xterminal
Dec. 7th, 2005 01:49 pm (UTC)
(a) Aside from the fact that he doesn't (understandably) address the single best aspect of legalization (the Spencerian one), he's dead on.

(b) smoking oregano, actually, rawks. And if you get busted for it, as long as one of the cops is Italian, you'll walk before you even get into the car. heh.
phillwee
Dec. 8th, 2005 09:59 pm (UTC)
I think he makes pretty good arguments. My problem is that I dońt trust corporations enough to give them the power to sell highly addictive drugs legally. Consider how relatively small, underground operations have complete control over entire poor neighborhoods, imagine a company like Philip Morris being able to legally sell crack. It would be 1800s China in the United States all over again.
razorslave
Dec. 8th, 2005 10:19 pm (UTC)

Consider how relatively small, underground operations have complete control over entire poor neighborhoods, imagine a company like Philip Morris being able to legally sell crack.


Not a very good argument. Government regulation, purity and strength standards would be enforced. But, to a certian extent i can see where you're coming from.

But just remember government regulation and education has cut the rate of cigarette use and tobacco addiction, to a fraction of what it was in the 50's. Nicotine is according to all information provided, more addictive than Heron. . . which is more addictive than the opiates you reference from 'china in the 1800's' comment.

Likely there would be a small spike in use, and the money that flooded into the prevention, education, and treatment programs would overall reduce the total number of drug users, plus get many many many people in jail for really dumb things out. .

Rev
( 3 comments — Leave a comment )