I'm picking a fight with the wrong person dude. Nah. Damone has left the thread. His stooge seems to have got left behind in the dust.
I didn't really leave the thread. I just didn't see the point of debating someone whose argument boils do using one logical fallacy after another and the basis of the position is basically "because that's what I think".
There is a lot of research on this topic and many well respected and intelligent people have weighed in. There are also many smart people who would argue keeping drug laws where they are, but those people use facts, data, and logic to present their position. Not just yelling louder and using logical fallacies to declare victory.
You're ignoring the argument and focusing on the baiting tactics.
There's no more logical and clearer case of if A then B than the legalization of marijuana in Washington State. When pot became legal in Washington (A), the government pounced on it like an eager cat, swiftly acting to regulate it and tax it (B). Until proven otherwise, it can be inferred from that, that if a state/principality/whatever legalizes heroin and methamphetamine, shops will be set up where it will be sold and taxed.
Now if B then C (if the government taxes meth and heroin, it cannot avoid playing a nefarious role in society)
These newly legalized drugs will have to remain largely unchanged, because their users will demand the high that they are accustomed to (unless the government somehow succeeds in 'improving' the drugs and making the highs better, while at the same time making them safer--not a likely scenario), or they won't buy them. If the government makes the drugs "safer" through regulation (like enforcing manufacturing standards for the drugs sold in shops) but degrades the high in doing so, unsafe versions will still be manufactured by rogue operators, and users will turn to these. These versions will be legal too, because if they're illegal, you've just gone in a circle, back to square one, where you're dealing with an illegal substance.
If the government legalize drugs like meth and heroin, the following scenarios will be possible:
1.) The government will directly involve itself in every aspect of these drugs, from start to finish. They will research and manufacture the drugs, attempting to maintain or improve the high, while making them safer at the same time, and this will set them (or their agents) up as manufacturer, dealer and monopoly of highly addictive substances that are superior to what came before it.
2.) They can authorize the manufacture by private individuals, of safer, regulated versions of the drugs that will invariably have a degraded high, and put them out to compete with the stronger drugs offered by rogue elements, and tax both, making them a profiteer of both regulated and unregulated meth and heroin. By allowing the unregulated versions to be sold also they will making money from deadly drugs sold by third parties.
3.) They can fully legalize it, not meddle or involve themselves in it all, but profit from it by taxing it, making them not much different than organized crime. None of these scenarios is good.
The weed experiment is in its infancy. But weed is tame. It doesn't turn people psycho (like meth does) or into corpses (the work of heroin). So the state (or its agents) will have to become the primary manufacturer, dealer and monopoly, creating drugs with better highs so that people won't turn to original versions of the drugs. Or they will have to face the consequences of the reality that they are profiting from the sale of deadly substances to their citizens by allowing third parties to operate. Their purpose in this endeavor, even if not intended, will become to hook the population. And because there is a vast amount of money to be made, these changes will not be rolled back very easily if later on down the road we wind up with a society of addicts and decide we've made a big mistake. Much easier to overthrow a cartel than a powerful, entrenched government. This looks like a dangerous road.
Every part of this argument is logical. The only real data you've thrown out was from the experiment in Portugal, where drugs were decriminalized. That data is not very helpful in determining how legalization might look. In fact it's completely irrelevant. Legalization and decriminalization are nowhere near the same. Until you address the glaring problem of what role the government will play in legalization and the impact that will have on society, your position is weak, bordering on untenable.
You don't know what a logical fallacy is, do you?
Still waiting for you to actually defend your position or attempt to refute this one. We already know about the failure of the war on drugs.
Forgot to add scenario number 4. government taxes drug sales of approved heroin and methamphetamine shops that are regulated (like liquor stores). But they decide to consider criminal any manufacturing operations that are underground and can't be taxed (making these drugs like Moonshine is to alcohol). So it won't be fully legal, just like alcohol isn't, and you will still have the same crime players running their racket.
You can keep arguing with logical fallacies, I will keep following reputable research, data, facts, and empirical data to draw conclusions.
But I'm glad you have made up your mind based on no real data, but you do seem to have created a bunch of your own scenarios that you can imagine might occur. Typical today of our electorate. Low information voters..
Comments
But I'm glad you have made up your mind based on no real data, but you do seem to have created a bunch of your own scenarios that you can imagine might occur. Typical today of our electorate. Low information voters..
home.uchicag.edu/gbecker/illegalgoods_Becker_Grossman_Murphy.pdf
m.nber.org//papers/w13759.pdf