Web Search powered by Yahoo! SEARCH
Let's see, "negative consequences," "dangerous substance," living in the shadows, placing fear ahead of medical need, where exactly am I romanticizing and idealizing drug use?
Amphetamines were legal and a fairly common stimulant a half century ago, used widely by U.S. soldiers in WWII. While there were people who abused these drugs and developed addictions, only in the wake of a legal crackdown did we start to see the profound devastation and toxic, backwoods labs that now characterize meth. There is harm in both approaches, so the question is have we made a bad situation worse with prohibition?
Overdose is not a function of availability so much as quality. It is the unpredictable nature of street drugs that make illegal drug users prone to overdose. Regulations and standards would make overdose less likely.
tannin, every article in the daily paper about Henry's death mentioned that he was beaten during a drug deal. I'm not sure how you missed that information; it is not new.
You all should note that I do not advocate legalizing meth, nor marijuana for that matter. I present the standard "harm reduction" argument and leave it to the reader to ponder. Were we to move beyond theory and start discussing actual changes in policy, I would probably opt for legalizing marijuana first and seeing whether law enforcement can better control other drugs using the new source of tax revenues and resources freed up from pursuing pot growers and dealers.
I do advocate rethinking our country's drug policies. I am also an advocate of free markets and personal liberty.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Username * Don't have an account? Sign up for a new account
Password * Can't remember? Reset your password
Comments can be shared on
Add both options by connecting your profiles.