At 10/19/11 06:00 PM, Jedi-Master wrote:
I can't even tell if you're being sarcastic with me now. If you're not being sarcastic with me, then I'll just have to say that what you suggest won't be a good idea at all. Rehabilitation is the answer, not incarceration or fining people.
I bet crippling fines would probably be a pretty good deterrent, to be honest. It would destroy the ability to buy drugs, among other things. Also, decent source of revenue for the government.
What? How is that a valid reason to prohibit anything? That's a good reason to prohibit a drug in your opinion? Whatever.
It is a plenty valid reason. If something is not providing anything to society beyond death and violence, it ought to be banned, pure and simple.
And by the way, people have and do benefit socially from alcohol all of the time. It is a social drug.
Inebriation is an impairment.
So are many medications when people overdose on them. Should we outlaw medications too?
Prescription drugs have a very tangible benefit -- they save lives. Though they are capable of causing addiction in some cases, the positives outweigh the negatives. Alcohol/other drugs destroy lives, and have no positives.
This isn't even a valid reason to outlaw anything. Wasting time doesn't hurt anyone. The government shouldn't decide what people should do with their time in the form of prohibition of certain substances or activities.
In combination with the other factors, this is definitely a valid point. If something is
1. Harmful
2. Without benefit
3. A waste of time
It ought to be banned.
Legally, you can't even define "wasting time."
Yes you can. If it provides no social benefit, and causes people to die, it is inherently a waste of time.
So are cars in general. Should we outlaw cars now?
Cars are not the cause of accidents in cases of drunk driving. Drunk drivers are the the cause in those cases. If a car manufacturer is creating something substandard, I'm all for more regulation, but that's beside the point.
And again I will tell you that prohibition won't work.
Just because it didn't work once, doesn't mean that it won't work if implemented properly.
So what? If people want to harm their own lungs, let them do so. They're not hurting anyone else.
It is harmful to people around them as well for a number of reasons including but not limited to secondhand smoke and the resulting impairment (after all, marijuana is a depressant just like alcohol).
And besides, you say that others in the vicinity of these weed smokers will have their lungs damaged as well. Not true for the most part. People who smoke weed tend to do it in the privacy of their own homes or any place else where they won't be seen. As such, other people likely won't suffer any lung damage from weed smoke.
Kids. I hear of and see parents all the time who smoke in front of their kids, particularly in lower class neighborhoods.
Pre-emptively?
Yes, banning drugs before their danger is manifest.
The thing is, these drugs are not dangers to society for the most part.
Disagreed.
Fun fact: the death penalty has been proven to be an ineffective deterrent against people who have committed murder and/or rape.
I don't at all believe in the death penalty. The number of cases of mistaken identity and wrongful execution are staggering. It's better to free a guilty person than execute an innocent one.
This little fact proves your assertion wrong. And besides, imposing harsher penalties isn't a realistic and effective approach to the problem.
Fines represent an effective middle ground.
Moreover, harsher penalties would make prisons overcrowded, which makes for unsanitary conditions and forces judges to compel city, county, and/or state prisons to release these same offenders who were incarcerated for drug offenses.
I've said imprisonment is not the solution. "Harsher penalties" refers to fines.
