Counter Intuitive Drug Policy
I've heard several people who were against Ron Paul's stance on drugs. I encourage you to read the book "Reefer Madness"; it's a book about the illegal trade of drugs, sexworkers, and illegal immigration with an interesting tie to Indiana. Initially it didn't seem to be a coherent topic to me, but the author actually brings it together nicely.
Based on the numbers quoted in the book, countries (like Amsterdam) that have legallized drugs actually have lower usage rates among the general public than the United States! While they did see an initial increase in recreational drug use after they legallized them, after the novelty wore off (a few years), the drug use rates actually dropped lower than ours!
I'm not for drug use, and that's why I don't use drugs. That being said, I'm also not for using my tax dollars to put people in jail for choosing to put substances in their bodies. When you start figuring out how much money the US governement spends on the "War on Drugs" and incarcerating people, you will be shocked at what these policies cost us. If you legallized drugs, you'd change this from a losing proposition (tax money going towards arrests, incarceration, etc.) to a winning proposition (tax revenue from sales) much like we currently have on alcohol or tobacco.
The book also makes an excellent point that legallizing drugs eliminates the huge black market for drugs, and thus cuts off funding to gangs / organized crime. When you think of it in context of how bootlegging funded gangsters in the 30's (not to mention the creation of Nascar!), it makes sense that if the goverment tries to ban something that it can't stop, that it simply creates a black market that will be filled by someone.
I hope this explained some of the logic behind legallizing recreational drugs, even if you personally don't use them. While I wish people didn't feel the need to use them, a goverment policy can't replace a citizen's personal responsibility to make good decisions for themselves.
I've heard several people who were against Ron Paul's stance on drugs. I encourage you to read the book "Reefer Madness"; it's a book about the illegal trade of drugs, sexworkers, and illegal immigration with an interesting tie to Indiana. Initially it didn't seem to be a coherent topic to me, but the author actually brings it together nicely.
Based on the numbers quoted in the book, countries (like Amsterdam) that have legallized drugs actually have lower usage rates among the general public than the United States! While they did see an initial increase in recreational drug use after they legallized them, after the novelty wore off (a few years), the drug use rates actually dropped lower than ours!
I'm not for drug use, and that's why I don't use drugs. That being said, I'm also not for using my tax dollars to put people in jail for choosing to put substances in their bodies. When you start figuring out how much money the US governement spends on the "War on Drugs" and incarcerating people, you will be shocked at what these policies cost us. If you legallized drugs, you'd change this from a losing proposition (tax money going towards arrests, incarceration, etc.) to a winning proposition (tax revenue from sales) much like we currently have on alcohol or tobacco.
The book also makes an excellent point that legallizing drugs eliminates the huge black market for drugs, and thus cuts off funding to gangs / organized crime. When you think of it in context of how bootlegging funded gangsters in the 30's (not to mention the creation of Nascar!), it makes sense that if the goverment tries to ban something that it can't stop, that it simply creates a black market that will be filled by someone.
I hope this explained some of the logic behind legallizing recreational drugs, even if you personally don't use them. While I wish people didn't feel the need to use them, a goverment policy can't replace a citizen's personal responsibility to make good decisions for themselves.
