I oppose all of them and think (and feel, even though I understand not many people here enjoy the “feel” concept) that the benefits would at least be one of a less violent society. That’s just one positive [re-step] forward for human evolution in today’s technological societies.
What are your opinions on this topic?
If there are any personal experiences, refer to the self as third-person (SWIM - Someone Who Isn’t Me) just in case there are creepers looking to take away someone’s liberties by physical force - The Feds.
Despite the vague nature of your OP, i will go ahead and say that i think this topic is important and that it should be obvious to any reaonable person that the drug laws are way out of whack. Starting with the nonsensical attitude towards marijuana compounded to how it fairs compared to alcohol, i think its clear that the very idea of a drug law is derrived mostly from a dogmatic perspective first and then secondly with some vague sense of logic and reason.
I think each drug category and substance needs careful evaluation. I dont know any stats on the subject off hand, but i would suggest that if, for example, the stats turned out to say that 80 percent of those who try crack become addicts, it would stand to reason, given the statistical possibility of destructive consequences, that it should be outlawed. One thing that occurs to me is that, it intuitively seems irresponsible to do something like regulate things like crack and meth, for example. i could pontificate on that for awhile, but it’d be boring.
To continue the line of thinking though, i would consider my daughter. If crack were legal, on grounds of letting people decide on their own how to treat their bodies, i would seriously doubt the idea that crack is anything but a destructive endeavor, and to have no consequence other than the physical effects stand in the way between my daughter having the ability to do crack if it crossed her path… i would want the substance to be as hard to get as possible. (i fully admit that i’m relatively ignorant on crack and those who do it… but i would take the leap and say it seems like people dont generally “dabble” in crack or meth.)
logically, it seems to me that you’d have to, as a society, given what we know about developing adolescent/early adult brains with regard to strict biology and some sort of baseline set of mores for the given society, you’d at least have to come up with an age limit and serious taxation.
the other thing that occurs to me is that what kind of a desire is the desire to have THAT kind of physical experience? how can we gauge the health of someone who isn’t afraid of the possible dangers of crack or meth? can we condone the impulse to do so in order to deal with the issue of its legality including if we’re just talking an age limit and tax? i think Harris’ moral landscape is applicable here.
At what point do we humans have a biological tendency to hurt or kill someone else? if that tendency exists, do we make a law that says we can only kill under certain circumstances. no. but there is the self-defense argument. and clearly someone isn’t smoking crack out of self defense (unless with a gun to their head… “6 feet under” anyone?). so what’s the lure of crack? intense physical pleasure? sure. but the dangers are paramount. so i think there could be some regulations with regard to the problem of people who are, in one way or another, not able to make an informed decision.
incarceration, though? no. i would advocate against incarceration for drug offenses. so i guess between incarceration and totall legality of crack, is somewhere where i stand (i know.. definitive, eh?)
I dont really know and i’m claiming nothing absolute. these are just my immediate thoughts, subject to change.
At the very least, pot needs to have its stigma obliterated and it’s legality restored.