And there are places where you be convicted of a felony and sentenced to prison for possession of an ounce of marijuana, with almost no legal recourse if they decide to charge you possession with intent to distribute because the penalty is so outrageously high you can't possibly consider rolling the dice on a trial. It is as though there is no legal recourse at all.
State legislators in each state establish their laws based on what they think the voters want. It's always gonna be that way.
>> OK, I'm not opposed to substitution drugs. But since you've said painkiller addicts (like oxycontin) function in society okay all ready, why are you saying we should transition them to something else?
I didn't say that. I qualified it, saying that some people are able to function well. Others get totally out of control. Not all addicts end up rolling in the gutter and begging for spare change.
OK, but since all don't, why not just let the ones who don't beg for change in the be addicted to whatever they end up addicted to (if its legal) w/o the state getting involved?
One of the things that really opened my eyes was, oddly enough, watching the reality show "First 48", which I've watched for years. It struck me that almost all of the murders are a direct result of the illegality of drugs, and often, the people being murdered have nothing to do with the drug trade. The majority of them are over marijuana, and I can't think of a reason it should be illegal. It is true that other drugs pose a problem, but you could eliminate a large portion of it by legalizing pot. IMO.
Not sure I'd base much on a tv show, as we don't know the cases picked are representative. "most of the people murdered have nothing to do with the drug trade. The majority are over marijuana" - maybe the producers are picking over the cases where the victims are so unsavory the public wouldn't care that they got killed. |
