XPost: talk.politics.drugs, alt.philosophy   
   From: nothanks@nowhere.com   
      
   "Dan Day" wrote:   
   > "Manny Davis"  wrote in message   
   >> "Dan Day"  wrote:   
   >> > "cybrwurm"  wrote in message   
   >> > news:100c4uv69iov93c@corp.supernews.com...   
   >> >> +   
      
   [snip]   
      
   >> >> Wasting billions of dollars fighting   
   >> >> a "war" that is a lose-lose situation for everyone is a mistake.   
   >> >   
   >> > A "lose-lose" situation? What is the alternative side (hence, the   
   >> > second "lose")?   
   >>   
   >> The drug war is a winner for the state and certain special interest   
   >> groups. It is a loser for drug consumers.   
   >   
   > So? What is the alternative side then?   
      
   A free market.   
      
   >> > So you wouldn't say it benefits people by alerting them of a   
   >> > substance that could potentially alter their lives drastically?   
   >>   
   >> Prohibition doesn't "alert", it prohibits. Banning an innocuous plant   
   >> that has a mulitude of uses does not benefit the general public.   
   >   
   > Sure it is a form of an alter, albeit much more than simply that. If   
   > it wasn't an alert of some kind, what would be the point of   
   > prohibiting it in the first place if there was clearly no danger?   
      
   There would be no point. It wasn't prohibited because of health reasons.   
      
   >> >> Society will not break down, or fall apart, and people will not   
   >> >> lose their will to do something constructive with their lives.   
   >> >> All such fears are groundless in the extreme.   
   >> >   
   >> > But things *will* change. Since you are not psychic, you cannot   
   >> > make such broad gaurantees. Of course, society most likely wouldn't   
   >> > break down, but society could change for the worse.   
   >>   
   >> I don't see how. Please elaborate.   
   >   
   > The crimilization of pot is a huge thing. It is simply not a veil that   
   > could easily be lifted. Certain funds would have to be reallocated,   
   > enforcement structures would have to be changed, people's attitudes   
   > would come into conflict with one another, etc. With any governmental   
   > action as big as this, the effects of lifting it completely are   
   > potentially huge (on a domestic scale, at least).   
      
   Putting people in prison because they wish to inhale the smoke of a plant   
   is morally despicable. What's right and wrong comes first, not last. I   
   don't care that DEA agents might have to find other "work" or that some   
   people might be offended because pot is legally being bought and sold.   
      
   >Furthermore, there   
   > would have to be at least some instances where pot smoking is illegal   
   > (comparatively to situations which alcohol would be illegal), which   
   > would take even more time and conflict before any issue would get   
   > resolved.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)