Originally posted by NY Madman: The pro-legalization arguments rely on too many assumptions. One assumption being that legalization would have no negative effect on society as a whole and that the amount of people who smoke pot will not increase because of the fact that the government has put their seal of approval on the drug.
Another common assumption is that the legalization of pot will completely eliminate all the underground trafficking and criminal element involved in the pot trade.
Probably the biggest assumption made by the pro-legalization side of the argument is that most governments on earth are wrong regarding the issue.
No, I'm not so naiive to think that there would be no more pot users than there are today. Experimentation and recreational use would go way up.
On the illegal trafficking, it would likely follow the same course as alcohol in post-prohibition years. There's still money to be made on untaxed liquor, however, illegal liquor, while still present, is run by small timers because there just isn't the opportunity for big money in it like there was in a prohibition environment. The same would hold true for a few home growers that will sell their product for a few bucks under what you can buy a pack of Marlboro Light Joints at the local 7-11.
The key to use is moderation. The examples of people I'd mentioned are no different than citing examples of people who drink, but are not alcoholics.
I guess there's no use in trying to get you to see the parallels.
As for governments of the world being wrong....well, that's a whole other subject that would quickly turn into a 50 page thread.
Previous Topic
Index
