QUOTE |
55-YEAR SENTENCE FOR FIRST-TIMER APPEALED Angelos' case sparks debate about minimum-mandatory laws. By the time Weldon Angelos is released from prison on a first-time federal drug conviction, he will be 80 years old. |
Ok my views on this are conflicting on the one hand legalizing pot, equals a huge reduction in man hours and cost for keeping it illegal, tax income as well, home grown in america( could control the THC levels), no more dangerous activity involving pot. So for the government I see it as a plus, as the high basically makes you want to do absolutely nothing but eat, it's fairly safe no worse then booze, and smoking it would have to be done in bars or private property just like drinking.
On the other hand, I do see it as the gateway drug. Have had a close family member go from having it all and being set for life. To being in debt and staying in my house going through the step program. She is a totally different person from what I remember her years ago.
Summing it all up personally I would vote no if I was given the choice. But as a country I seeing it as being no worse then booze providing the person has the will power not to move on the the next drug. If it goes to a vote it would pass by a slim margin I do fear.
My theory is if people really want to use pot they will anyway. I know very few young people who haven't tried that drug, it is so easy to get hold of. And as you correctly point out, it is just as dangerous as alcohol.
I think people do drugs because they want to, not because it's available. These days it is quite easy for people to get hold of whatever drug they want, but not eveybody wants to do it, the majority don't.
I agree that if people want to use drugs, they will use it anyway. But I do not agree with the idea of legalizing based on this or make it available for them like in some countries of Europe, I think that's wrong. I can understand that it is the person's choice to consume alcohol for instance and become an alcoholic, it does not mean I am going to provide free wine or other alcohol beverages for them just for the purpose of "controlling" the "good" use of it. That's non-sense.
I don't believe all drugs shouls be legalised. But there are some that could be. This isn't a moral debate for me, it's a pragmatic one.
The simple fact is people are going to take drugs whether they are legal or not. By regulating their distribution you can monitor the purity and ensure the drug is not deadly on whatever dose you make available. You can also educate those people who will use them. You can also tax them and raise revenue for useful purposes.
But most importantly, you can destroy the illegal drug trade which is the main cause of drug abuse. When people don't know what they are getting every time they visist their dealer, that is what is causing a lot of the problems.
Dangerous drugs should never be legalised, but the less harmful ones have a case.
At the end of the day serious education is the best way to prevent their use. But Governments are too scared of the political ramifications of introducing a serious drug education regime in schools.
Let me remind everyone here the two most deadly drugs in the world by far are cigarettes and alcohol. Why don't we ban them? This is a debate that should at least be held.
MEXICO READY TO GIVE DRUG ADDICTS A BREAK
Mexico is set to legalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana, ecstasy, cocaine and heroin.
Ref. https://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...rugs060428.html
I don't see how this is going to help the country's fight in the current drug war. The problem is not that people of Mexico are trying to get the drugs for themselves illegally, it is that they are trying to sell it to the US; their biggest and most profitable market. Legalizing drugs in Mexico will not help any if it is still illegal in the US. In fact, now it will create a bigger problem as people from the US go over to Mexico to obtain drugs freely and illegally and move it back to the US. "Well isn't that the solution they are looking for?" Not really. The amount of drugs necessary to make a profit will probably still be illegal, supposing that limits are imposed on sales of those drugs. So, the problem would still exist and smugglers need to move large amounts of drugs into the US.