Reply #36: If I understand the question, no I don't. [View All]

[Greyhound]

IMO the attempted prohibition has, as always, resulted in an artificial increase in demand and the creation of new and worse drugs. I would not be opposed to some sort of purity enforcement, just to make sure you are getting what you are paying for, and unscrupulous suppliers are not selling lethal substances represented as something else.

I think everybody has a right to make their own choices regarding what they chose to put, or not to put, into their own bodies. Of course, one of the arguments is always to the extreme, such as "would you legalize heroin?" to which my reply is, yes. Heroin was, in fact, legal for many years (sold as a remedy for whooping cough IIRC) before it was outlawed and society didn't suffer nearly as much harm as the illegality of drugs has caused. I also think that the demand would dramatically decrease, I mean, would you suddenly start using heroin if it were legal? I wouldn't. How many people would be using meth, if pharmaceutical stimulants were available? Not too many, I'll wager.

The bottom line is that there is a very consistent, very tiny (1% - 3%), minority of people in every society that engages in self destructive behavior and outlawing substances has never had any effect on this. Very lethal substance abuse is a self-correcting problem and all the draconian measures in the world have not, and never will, change this.

To put it another way, everybody that wants to use drugs, is using drugs in spite of the law. So what purpose do the laws serve?