Drug War Supporters: Evil or Uneducated?

The point of my post on this subject was not to debate the merits of Portugal's drug laws. It was a response to the OP who used Portugal as an example of how drug decriminalization is a net positive for the society.

He used Portugal as an example of positive effects of no prohibition when they still do most certainly have prohibition against drugs.

 

It's funny because this is supposed to be a free country.

 

If drugs never caused harm to people other than those who are using I'd say make them legal.

 

Drugs are not sentient beings, they cannot act on other people. Only people can act on other people.

Can you give me an example where a bag of drugs robbed someone or picked up a gun and shot someone?

Anyway, this isn't about whether drugs cause harm, it's about the fact that prohibition has been proven to make drugs even more harmful. Did you even read the post about how making heroin illegal causes more overdoses?

 

I think they are mostly well intentioned but misinformed. Personally, I don't think possession of any drug should be illegal. I don't understand why its the governments business to decide what I put into my own body. That's not to say I think every drug should be legal to sell, as I think thats a different circumstance, but it shouldnt be a crime to harm yourself.

People who oppose legalizing marijuana are just stubborn I think. There is absolutely no reason to prohibit a substance that poses less harm, to both the user and society in general, then another substance that is not only legal, but almost revered. On top of that, I think legalizing the marijuana industry would create more jobs than any other single action could.

 

Neither.

Drugs destroy lives. That's why there's a war on drugs in this country, because its to save lives.

And not to mention, there's a large amount of illicit drugs that come in from other countries.

Pro-drug people often ignore those facts.

 

If drugs were legal an employer couldn't fire an employee who tests positive for drugs. That would result in more work related accidents, which employers would have to pay for with worker's compensation insurance.

Also, some drugs are deadly. Easy access to these drugs would cause a monumental amount of death.

And since drug addicts can't hold down a job, they would still steal to support their habits.

The Drug War is properly blamed on people who take drugs, and fuel the violence with their money. If people would just stop taking drugs, the problem would be solved.

 

It's hard to say the drug war saves lives when it's not really preventing anyone from getting drugs (ask your friends or go downtown, you can get whatever you want by the end of the day). It's clearly causing harm not only through law enforcement, through the money spent jailing addicts (where drugs are available btw) rather than treating them, and also by giving violent gangs a source of easy income. Yes drugs are bad and yes it's best that people not use them, but clearly the war on drugs itself is causing great harm with no real evidence that it's preventing drug use.

 

Can an employer fire people who are drunk on the job? If so they why could they not fire people who are high on drugs while on the job? Why can they still not require drug screenings at time of employment?

 

Why should an employer be able to fire someone for what they do on heir own time? Its none of their buisness. If you show up for work drunk, you get fired. If you get drunk at work, you get fired. That's how it should be not only for alcohol, but any drug.

As for the easy access and overdose argument.... I have a hard time imagining someone desperately wanting to smoke crack, but letting the law stop them. I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about drug laws, and I don't want to smoke crack. It's already easy for drug addicts to find the drugs they want. That's how they got to be addicts in the first place.

Also, i smoke pot on the daily. I work full time as a laborer. Before that, the longest I had gone without a job was 2 weeks. Not because I got fired, but because the job was seasonal. Not only do I not have a problem holding a job, my employers are always sad to see me go.

 

The difference is, they don't make drug users out to be criminals. It's a step in the right direction and has most definitely been positive. (Look at the statistics!)

Do you support the War on Drugs, even in the face of all this evidence?

Does anyone who supported/supports prohibition on this forum have the guts to come forward and refute all the evidence I have provided in the OP and the subsequent post about heroin, or admit that I'm right about prohibition?

 

Did you read the OP? The drug war is killing people. Lot's of people. It gives gangs a profitable business. The cartels would be gone if drugs we legal.

How is this point in support of the drug war?

 

I am generally against the drug war, but it is not hard to see why some people are for it despite some of your facts without calling them evil or uniformed.
First, death toll in Mexico means nothing... Ordinary people don't care if some nobodies in Mexico are dying and will take that over massive drug use in their community anyday. Second, all of your assumptions of what will happen when drugs are legalized are just that, assumptions. No one knows what exactly will happen if drugs are legalized and that rightly scares a decent amount of people into supporting the status quo where they pay some money for the problem to stay far away.
Third: the drug war doesn't stop people from getting drugs. It kind of does. Any regular citizen doesn't know how/where to get heroin unless they are willing to venture into the "bad" parts of town and randomly ask people. Obviously it doesn't stop regular users, but its not meant to. It's meant to discourage as many people as possible from thinking about going after them, which it does to some degree. Speed limits don't stop anyone from speeding but it scares enough people to get a majority of the population to follow the speed limit.
Finally, allowing criminals to profit. I don't see anyway around this, but again it goes back to my first point where average citizens would rather see drugs as far away as possible with some bad guys profiting than in their backyard in the hands of their children.
So I wouldn't call drug war supporters evil or uniformed, just self motivated.