gkekoa
Well-Known Member
I actually agree with you. I think if drugs were legal, you are not going to see a nation full of addicts. Just like we don't see a nation full of drunks. Will there me more? Yes. But I don't think it would be some huge increase. I also agree, that no matter if legal or not, an employer has a right to set rules as to how their employees act while on the job. This includes both being high as well as being hungover from a high. But it would be determined by performance in their duties or how it affects their coworkers performance of their duties. If you take a job knowing the rules and expectations ahead of time and you violate those rules, you should fairly suffer the consequences. I just don't think that the Government should use laws, but let the market work as it should. You show up high/drunk and it affects your performance, you are gone. Regardless of a law. In short, the government should not be in enacting laws to influence morality, unless that morality affects the will, welfare or liberty of others (child molestation, etc). Obviously this is a very nuanced issue and I am talking about it at a very high level. But back to the point of pot, it is not a gateway drug any more that alcohol is.
I actually do think you would see much higher rates of addiction. I also say let them die if that is a consequence.
As for the NFL, they shell out guaranteed money for services expected but not yet received. People are simply a resource. If drugs taint the resource, would a seller want the tainted resource?
Do drug addicts affect the welfare and liberty of others? Yes they do. Rampant drug use will lead to a less productive society and higher crime. It also leads to higher hospitalization rates, higher rates of rehab, and we will be single payer eventually so higher taxes.
I agree it is very nuanced. Some get very touchy and don't actually read what I write. Here is what I am saying. Alcohol is bad. They attempted to ban it and the result was bad. Marijuana has some uses but the primary one on an open market is the high. I am fine with legalization or not because both can be argued and argued intelligently within the Constitutional realm. If you argue for legalization of marijuana though, you have to advocate for legalization of all drugs.
Probably less that the percentage of people that started with alcohol. I get that you are not specifically defending alcohol. But you are defending the government's ability to pick and choose which stimulant they will allow its citizens to partake when you single out pot.
BTW, you probably think I am a smoker at this point. You would be wrong. When younger, I did smoke recreationally (once in a while) so I understand what pot is, what it does, and what it doesn't do. Its all blown way out of proportion because of some societal perception led by those that want to legislate they believe you should do and don't do. Pot is not a gateway drug. That is a bunch of crap. For those that smoke pot and go on to hard drugs has little to do with the pot and more to do with their addictive personalities.
Oh I would almost guarantee the alcohol percentage would be higher or equal at near 100% for both because of availability. I have never singled out pot. I lump it in with illegal drugs versus alcohol which is legal. Alcohol is a depressant and weed is a hallucinogen but I understand what you are saying. Now if you condone legalization of marijuana and not cocaine, then you are doing that same thing.
You know what it does to you. Actually it does still have to do with weed...they would not become addicted if it tasted like shit and didn't make them feel good.