RottenJohnny
Posts: 1677
Joined: 5/5/2006 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63 ...I don't think it's a proper role of government to protect people from themselves. Neither do I. quote:
Think of what you're saying here, especially in the context of all the violence taking place and the particularly gruesome aspects of it. Beheadings, massacres, torture, dismemberment of innocent people - all because some old ladies in government think they want to save addicts who are hellbent on killing themselves anyway. I agree that what's been happening in Mexico is horrible and I realize your real concern is stopping the violence. But what's happening there, in my opinion, has gone well beyond the notion that it's all because some Americans want what the cartels are offering. It's become a power struggle between the government and a bunch of violent killers addicted to money and power. That isn't solely our responsibility no matter what the impetus for it was. We have not been their only customers. But think about what you're saying as well. From what it sounds like, you're arguing against the people that want to save addicts hellbent on killing themselves yet you expect us to do the same by accepting and treating addicts who are often just as hellbent on staying high. Is it really any different? Addiction is addiction and that is where the real problem lies. Or am I misunderstanding your comment? quote:
quote:
IMO, this is probably the worst logical argument for the legalization of drugs. How so? I think it's a perfectly valid and practical argument. It's not the only argument I would make, but I can't see anything wrong with it. Perhaps you can enlighten as to what the problem is with it. Because it's the same kind of argument a drug dealer makes to justify his business, "The money was just too good". The premise ignores all the possible negative effects of drug use for the sake of profit. And while I'll admit that it may only be a moral or ethical argument on my part, I've already witnessed enough damage from drug abuse and capitalist zealotry to question the legitimacy of such a proposal. That's why I started that comment with IMO (In My Opinion). quote:
quote:
quote:
It could be a win-win for all. Anyone who really thinks this is completely naive. Again, I'm looking at the results of what we're doing already. It's not working. The excessive violence in Mexico is proof positive of this, so the status quo should not be continued. The excessive violence in Mexico is only proof that there are a bunch of violent killers in Mexico. I doubt it would matter much if their money came from people buying drugs or Cuban cigars. (Added later as an edit) BTW...what do you think the probability is that even one of those violent killers is acting so because he's using the drugs he obviously has easy access to? quote:
To think that continuing with drug prohibition will lead to anything good for society is, in my opinion, far more naive than what you're saying here. The whole idea has been terribly naive from the very start, and innocent people are being killed because of this naivete. I respect your opinion, Zonie, but if you think I'm really being that naive then why don't you go find out what it's like to be addicted to something like cocaine, meth, or heroin, make the struggle back to sobriety, then come tell us what you think about it. And if you've already gone through that kind of situation then I applaud your tenacity and strength of will. But if you think it's better to legalize addictive drugs and treat the addicts then would you support continuing prohibition of addictive drugs while pushing the development of medications that block those drugs from affecting the brain in the way they do?
< Message edited by RottenJohnny -- 7/17/2013 8:37:07 PM >
_____________________________
"I find your arguments strewn with gaping defects in logic." - Mr. Spock "Give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry I believe in common sense, not common opinions. - Me
|