Online pharmacy cost levitra. Levitra online consultation us. Levitra. Levitra…..

I'm not really an anarchist, but I put forth the extreme view of individual liberty because we too often forget that society is made of individuals, and our government was ostensibly created to protect individual rights. Most illegal drug users use marijuana. They are professionals and laborers, doctors, lawyers, construction workers and homemakers. They are productive members of society that are vilified unjustly and persecuted for their preferences. They have a right to be left alone. The harder drugs are used by a much greater minority, and their use should be viewed as a symptom of societal ills, not necessarily a cause.

As all this relates to markets, why can't we have some reasonable regulation of the drug market rather than a draconian prohibition that exacerbates the problems of drug use and drains society of resources that could be put to much better use?

Maye there could be meth dens were speeders could run in squirrel cages and polish intricate metalwork, etc.

Who said they were pro-drug?

The argument is that prohibition creates more problems than it solves.

If I had said "I think murderers should be put to death," would you have said the same thing? Your argument only makes sense if you believe that drug dealing is approximately the moral equivalent of failing to use a turn signal. You may believe that, but I suspect that you would be in the minority.

All –

It's interesting that many of the pro-drug arguments here are all about marijuana and not about the really serious stuff like Meth, Heroin or PCP. It may be that mj laws are far too strict, but that does not necessarily imply the same for those more serious drugs.

Drugs will come down in price but will they be free? Alcohol isn't free just because it's legal. Alcohol still costs a lot because production costs hence is way more expensive than soft drinks (A.K.A. 'soda'). The price of drugs ought to come down a great deal but it will still cost money. If people get caught in a downward spiral of addiction to a particular drug where they lose their income then there's a good chance they'll commit crimes to suport their habits. By rights, the number of crimes would be fewer and farther between because the price is considerably lower. Then again, what happen if drug producers decide to see if they can grab patents on slightly modified versions of existing drugs? The price may start creeping up again. And what of FDA approval?

You don't get to pick and choose. To hand over power to fanatics because of a certain consequence you favor means you have to go along with their whole agenda.

But, I do know that it will lower the barrier for *my kids* to use drugs,

If you want to reduce the chance that your kids will do drugs, then I urge to keep them out of public schools. Homeschool them to maintain the family relationship til they reach adulthood.

Chris,

Sharia Law has it backward. The suppliers are in business because of demand. Rapid death to those consuming drugs would be a more effective deterrent, if that's your goal.

I don't support either remedy.

Currently, probably suppliers. But, you're missing my point, which was more narrowly focused on the hyperlibertarian "What I do with my own body is my own business, so *piss off*" attitude.

A common argument against my point is a sideways attack — basically, "Sure, there are problems when you legalize drugs. But, the total harm is significantly lower." That may be true. Or, it may not. We just don't know what's going to happen if drugs are legalized. But, I do know that it will lower the barrier for *my kids* to use drugs, and that means more to me than 100 dead drug lords in Mexico City. [Despite sensational stories to the contrary, beer, sold in gas stations and grocery stores, is easier for a high school kid to get than crack.]

Personally, I think this is one of the few places that Sharia law has it right. Rapid death to those dealing drugs would quickly eliminate most of the problem at a much lower cost than the current war on drugs.

A drop of nicotine can kill an adult human.
There is also a lethal dose of alcohol and one for caffeine.

There is no known lethal dose for marijuana. I know of no one that claims marijuana is "harmless".

If there are certain people who still can't control their drug habit such that they are unemployable and commit crimes to support their habit then they'll find themselves constantly in trouble with the law just as now.

That may be, but a large part of that problem, for a lot of people with this issue, is due to prohibition pricing.
I have seen it with crack.

Marijuana isn't safe

We often hear that marijuana should be legalised because it's harmless. Nobody ever died from smoking pot, we're told, and anyway it's obviously much safer than tobacco. There's a lot of truth in that. There's also a lot of falsehood.

It is true that, compared to tobacco, less of the hemp weed needs to be smoked to maintain a habit, so some of the health hazards may also be correspondingly less; but to be safer than something that will kill around 20% of the population is hardly a recommendation.

It is also true that no one drops dead from smoking a reefer — overdosing on marijuana is all but impossible — but then no one drops dead from smoking a cigarette either. That doesn't make tobacco safe. And it doesn't make marijuana safe.

Whilst you make a reasonable point Sam Grove but even though alcohol is legal people don't only drink light beer either. It would be sad irony if hard drugs would not have appeared if soft drugs had have stayed legal however hard drugs are here to stay (the cat's out of the bad, so to speak).

The obvious 'middle' solution would be the same as alcohol: drugs are legal to consume – if you can afford it, do it on your own time and premises that allow it, but, BUT, you can't harm others nor put yourself in a position of responsibility whilst high (just as you can't drink-drive). If there are certain people who still can't control their drug habit such that they are unemployable and commit crimes to support their habit then they'll find themselves constantly in trouble with the law just as now.

Besides I s'pose some say "when drugs are legal they'll be doctored to give the 'high' without any of the negative consequencees". There is only 'drug' that fits that safe category and that's caffeine.

Where do you think more violent crime comes from, users of illegal drugs, or suppliers?

I was recently visiting a city in Mexico, but had to put off my visit when the local drug lord engaged in a machine gun and RPG battle with the military.

Compared to the violence associated with the War on Drugs, a PCP user is pretty minor.

The high level of violence due to the Drug War not only kills lots of people in the US and Mexico, it also makes it difficult to obtain a useful education in most poor urban areas due to its distractions of easy profits and daily threat of violence.

I was trying to bring up a counterpoint to the main argument in favor of legalization. To do that, I don't need to recite or even refute every argument in favor. It may be that those arguments outweigh mine, but I don't think so.

As to the whole "you can't be a free society and legalize drugs" argument, I don't subscribe to the extreme libertarian "I ought to be able to do whatever I want to with my body" position. What you do has externalities on me. For example, addiction to Meth has serious long-term impacts including brain damage, sometimes requiring long-term care. Who will pay for that care? (The "they'll pay themselves, or rot on the street" answer won't really fly.) What happens when somebody on PCP becomes violent and hurts people around them?

One effect noted about prohibition of substances is the increasing potency of said substances. It is easier to smuggle and transact concentrates than diluted forms.

This happened with alcohol, cocaine, and opium.

The guy states that drugs are dangerous, admits that there is no proof that marijuana is dangerous, then says that it must be dangerous because drugs are dangerous.

A little too much "begging the question" for me.