Exactly, until the voters democratically decide otherwise, that's it.Originally Posted by alexar
Exactly, until the voters democratically decide otherwise, that's it.
OK then. But I say cannabis should be legalised. So now we have a discussion again, yay!
In that respect I agree with you, alexar. However, I'd like to know your stance on heavier drugs.
If you ask me, heavy drugs must be criminalised, not for moral reasons, but simply because drugs like cocain and heroin are proven to ruin not only users' lives (who cares, 'it's their life') but many others' as well (e.g. their family). That's why governments rightly prohibit it. How dare anyone put their personal liberties over others' welfare.
Marijuana, however, may cause cancer and be highly addictive, but it's no worse than tobacco, and as other posters have mentioned, I've never heard of a broken home because of cannabis use. For these reasons it should be legal.
If a Democratic administration ( because that is the party most likely to agree to minority pressure ) were to legalise cannabis in the USA, the populace would have to put up with the consequences until an incomng Republican administration repealed the concession to the self indulgence of the anything goes mentality of the irresponsible.
Brian, I know, one would think that, right? But we must look at actual instances of countries where cannabis is legalised. Look at the Netherlands. They're doing fine.
I must say, though, that, for cultural reasons, I don't foresee legalisation in the US in the coming years, so you can sigh of relief
Hear, hear!
I've decided to back out of this discussion since it appears that I put at risk my existence on lit net. Arguing over things like this is not why I come to lit net.
And so I leave all you pro-drug people with the word, enjoy. Just don't come crying to me.
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
John Stuart Mill wrote a fascinating philosophical treatise called "On Liberty" which was about, among other things, the problems inherent in a democratic system. In a democracy, Mill asserted, there is the ever pervading chance of what he deemed the "tyranny of the majority," which is the idea not simply that the majority may use its authority to pass legislation which trods upon the rights of the minority, but that it can oppress minority groups simply by controlling what is accepted to be "right" and what is accepted to be "wrong." It is the government's job to try to prevent this tyranny from occurring by governing according to the voice of the majority only insofar as it does not infringe the rights of the minority. Therefore, I say that both your majority which says "no, you can't" and your Republican administration which ignores the rights of minority groups are supremely unjust and unfit to make such decisions about what the minority can and cannot do.
Hell is other people.
~Jean-Paul Sartre, "No Exit"
I can go with all of that and I don't pretent to a fixed stance in this difficult area. But I find quite persuasive the argument that much evil, and much real, damaging crime, is created in the world by the drugs trade, which exists because the illegality of drugs raises the price so high that criminal profiteers are attracted to it. In that sense we have to admit that making recreational drugs illegal promotes crime - I mean violence, robbery, criminal empires running whole countries etc etc.
Unfortunately, John Stuart Mill couldn't understand the difference between liberty and licence.
To spice the discussion up, recently I happened to read an interesting article:
Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?
To sum up some points in that article, in Portugal, apparently, they decriminalized owning drugs (and that means any drug) and replaced jail time with therapy - that one could freely refuse. According to a paper published by a libertarian think-tank Cato, the drug use among teens in Portugal went down, as did the rate of new HIV infections caused by sharing dirty needles. The number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction doubled. Also note that apparently, drug dealing is still is a crime.
Now I am not Portuguese, nor have I read any other media on that experiment and someone on the article also opines that the decrease of drug use could be due to the cyclical nature of it, so perhaps I might have the wrong impression, but it seems to me, that decriminalizing owning drugs, pragmatically speaking, seems to work.
If you believe even a half of this post, you are severely mistaken.
Taliesin, I'm Portuguese and I didn't know that, actually. All I knew was that drugs have been a major problem in Portugal. I've just spoken with a Portuguese judge and he confirms what you've been saying:
- Possession of any kind of drug is legal so long as it is for use only (there's a stipulated amount that is legal to possess);
- Trafficking is still illegal, of course;
- Drug use is has been decreasing since the law was approved.
Though it's true this may be only a cyclical regression, this definitely seems like the fairest way of dealing with the issue. I still staunchly disapprove the trafficking and even possession of heavy drugs, but criminalisation is hardly a solution, I guess. Well, for once I'm proud of my country.
EDIT: A fascinating article, I've just read the whole of it. Thanks for sharing it.
Last edited by Mr Endon; 06-08-2009 at 07:06 AM.
I'm a bit confused here - possession is legal, I understand that bit, but trafficking is illegal, I understand that. So how do users actually get hold of their drugs? And does 'trafficking' include buying as well as selling? Are you allowed to 'grow your own'?
Yes, I am certain.
Just because legislation has been enacted does not mean that there are valid laws. Just because totalitarianists think that they know how should live does not mean that they do.
I asked that myself. It's complicated.
A Greek lawyer told me that in Greece it's illegal both to buy and to sell, so trafficking in the normal sense of the word. But the police won't hunt you down if you're in possession of drugs, simply because that would lead to overcrowding of prisons (cf. USA); plus, they have bigger fish to fry (drug barons, etc). So though buying is not actually legal, it's not that big an issue. A very intricate matter, I'm sure that had I had more time to talk to him I'd have figured it out better. He told me that basically if you ask "will I be prosecuted if I buy for own use?" the answer is "it depends". I asked if it's possible to grow your own and can't recall the exact answer, but again, I don't think it's as big a problem as, say, selling.
So that's Greece, about which I know next to nothing. As for Portugal, the case is much simpler. The Portuguese judge told me that buying is not illegal, as long as you only buy up to [stipulated amount]; likewise, obviously, you won't have a problem if you're in possession of drugs up to [stipulated amount].
(I agree that prescription drugs should not just be open to the average consumer.)
In my opinion, I believe doctors are shooting themselves in the foot. I don't know what country you live in, but in the US doctors/hospitals/insurance companies are becoming crooked and swindling good people out of their health and money. Obviously not all doctors are like this, however, a good majority in NC are under bad habits. (and from my understanding it reaches across the US)
Last edited by Mariamosis; 06-08-2009 at 09:27 AM.
-Mariamosis
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
