Drugs, shouldn't they or should they?

[manwithoutahome]

Bacchus,

That's exactly why I posted this question here at THR, you get great feedback, interesting commentary, different views, and generally, a great session without the worry of bashing, flames, and general obnoxiousness.

M.

 

[stevelyn]

When have you seen a Budweiser truck driver and a Miller truck driver fighting over a street corner.

That is precisely the arguement for legalizing drugs. By doing so you create a different kind of drug econonmy. One that is government regulated and taxed (like alcohol and the other evil weed, tobacco) You have licensed establishments where they are distributed from. Licensed facilities where they're manufactured. One where turf wars are fought in board rooms. You don't need to worry about quality control or what it's laced with. And is so cheap that you couldn't make a profit of the blackmarket with it.
This may be a cold-hearted Darwinist attitude, but my thinking is that legalization will not lead to significantly higher drug usage. Those with the propensity to do so will, those without won't. And as I posted earlier, hold all personally and fully responsible for their actions. No government checks or social programs to enable you to be a non-contributing, druggy parasite, and may evolution weed them from the gene pool.

One problem I find is an enforcement issue regarding DUI of drugs and how you obtain your evidence to prosecute similar to a DUI of alcohol. Until technology catches up (on) enforcement could be difficult.
Employers would still have the discretion to require drug free employees as they do now. Some now require tobacco free employees. After all no one I know of is allowed to show up for work drunk. And these days you can't smoke'em if you got'em outside designated smoking areas and those are even disappearing.