rus|Mike wrote:Jesuis. Do you realise that legalisation of all grugs (and therefore allowing their advertisment etc) will increase the number of addicts in dozens of times?!
Legalization does not mean that. Perhaps decriminalization would be a better word? In the US, it is illegal to advertise hard liquor on television and radio. Same thing for cigarettes. And I think that your situation of a kid looking at heroine advertisement and immediately saying to himself "ah! heroine! the answer to all of my problems" is idiotic, at best. Making something legal does not mean making it attractive, or advertising it, or encouraging people to do it.
Even if taxed, drugs would be cheaper. They would cause less harm to addicts, because there would be some assurance that the drugs would not be tainted. They would cause less harm to society, because addicts could seek help without as much stigma. There would also be less harm to society, in that organized crime syndicates would have one less product to sell (witness the collapse of the mafia in the US following the end of prohibition).
rus|Mike wrote:Historical example: China was for quite some time (I forgot the dates) facing the problem of complete destruction because of loads of people smoking opium. It was like a plague: there were simply not enough people for the country to function and for the population to reproduce. As far as I remember, the goverment started massively executing all those who sold drugs. Only that helped.
Have another look at the example of China. The British Empire encouraged the abuse of opium in order to keep the natives passive. This is a case where the government actively encouraged people to abuse drugs, which is not what I am talking about. Then the Boxer Rebellion occurred, and many British collaborators were killed, including those that sold the opium.
In the US, many Chinese (and others) used opium at the end of the 19th century. It caused no more problems than alcohol.
Xocrates wrote:Less of a good citizen, yes, since he obviously broke the law (in most places anyway).
- What if pot were legal? Would he be less of a good citizen then?
- So, anyone who breaks the law is a bad citizen (or less of a good citizen)? What about blacks during the civil rights movement in the US who broke the law by organizing sit ins at "white only" establishments? Were they "less good citizens"?
I would argue that if a law is unjust, then those that break that law are being good citizens, especially if they are breaking those laws as a form of protest. In the case of illegal drugs, where I think that the laws are ambiguous in terms of how just they really are, I am not going to make the argument that stoners are "better" citizens for breaking the law, but I also don't think that they are "lesser" citizens for the same.