|
|
|
Index:
Facts
our position
If drugs become legal, more people become addicted!
Dealing is second-degree murder!
Children could see their drug-using parents as good
example!
It is safer when drugs stay inaccessible!
Drugs are not good in general, so why legalize?
Alcohol and cigarettes are completely different!
Drugs from which you can become addicted at the first
time, are a different matter!
It is the duty of a state to save the people not
to let them use drugs!
More information and arguments
|
Facts:
Germany: It is legal to smoke tobacco products and to drink alcohol
beverages up to a certain percentage of alcohol with 16 years. With 18
years this restriction ceases. The percentage of alcohol in your blood
during driving may be up to 0.08%. All other drugs are illegal. 1996 was
tried to sell marijuana after the example of the Netherlands in pharmacies,
but the courts prohibited it before it even started. The possession of
a not exactly defined "small" amount of marijuana is exempt from punishment,
but not legal.
Netherlands:
The dealing and using of marijuana is exempt from punishment with 18 years
(not to confuse with legal, but the paxis seems the same). There are existing
so-called "Coffee-Shops" where marijuana can be bought and used in a relaxing
atmosphere. All other drugs except tobacco and alcohol are illegal. Mushrooms
and other natural drugs are sold in a juristical grey zone.
USA:
The legal drinking age is 21 years. The use of tobacco products is
allowed with 18 years. However, you have to show an ID or driver's license
up to your 26th year in order to buy tobacco products. The percentage
of alcohol in your blood during driving may be up to 0.02% over 21years
and 0.01% under 21 years. Even for little infringe of this amount the
driver's license can be suspended for a long period of time and even jail
does occur (because it is illegal to drink under 21).
our
position:
We believe that everybody has his "right to be high". The use of drugs
is a free decision for every single person and brings only this person
itself in physical danger. Most people realize which advantages and disadvantages
the use of drugs brings and they decided with their free will for the
advantages. For us, drug legalization is a way to save human life and
to make this world a bit safer.
Argument:
If drugs become legal, more people become addicted!
Counterargument: Why? Drugs are only used by people who wanted
to try them anyway and who wants to try drugs gets them anyway, even if
they are illegal. Besides does not everyone smoke cigarettes just because
they are legal. We can add also that after the legalization you can do
more open prevention: A good example is the Netherlands where the use
of marijuana is allowed. Now there are not more people addicted to this
drug, (as far as you can be psychically addicted to this), but there are
less drug related accidents, too, because help is now faster available
and everyone can say without problems to the doctor that he or she smoked
dope before the accident. As contrast the USA. When the teenager have
the possibility to drink, then they mostly get drunk, instead of just
drinking one or two beer. If they had the chance to get alcohol beverages
every day, this "ravenous hunger" would decrease very fast.
Argument:
Dealing is second-degree murder!
Counterargument: The purchaser is not forced to buy the drug. No,
it is his very own decision that affects just him and for that he has
to be responsible by his own. The dealer only satisfies the inquiry that
will always exist. But if drugs would be legalized, the typical drug dealer
would die out soon, because if it were allowed to deal in drugs natural
competition would come into being. That does mean the prices will stay
even and low, so drug related thefts, robberies or even murders are not
necessary anymore.another aspect is the quality of the drugs. If drugs
become legalized, they could be tested legally also and unintentional
overdoses because of too pure drugs would be avoidable. That would save
human life.
Argument:
Children could see their drug-using parents as good example!
Counterargument: No, because that would mean that all children from
alcoholics become alcoholics also. The opposite usually is the case, because
through the daily experience how drugs can change someone, they decide
mostly against start taking drugs. If parents explain their children responsible
how drugs work, which disadvantages they have and what the consequences
are, helps that much more than thousand times repeated anti-drugs-campaigns.
Also most parents stop just because of a new baby with the drinking or
smoking and give a positive example after stop taking drugs. Another point
is that parents would not have to be shamed to go with their kid in case
of an addiction to a drug-helping center. So they will dare this step
earlier and, if necessary, help is earlier available.
Argument:
It is safer when drugs stay inaccessible!
Counterargument:
The prohibition in the USA in the middle of this century brought them
Al Capone and the Mafia. Today there are Drive-by-shootings and gang fights
over drugs between the rival drug dealers. After a legalization, like
already said, would start a natural competition who would probably save
a lot of lifes. Also would a lot of police forces be saved who now waste
their time with chasing little drug users. The prisons would be emptier,
because, like already said the number of drug-related thefts and robberies
would decrease. That saves money too what could be used for drug prevention/withdrawal
programs.
Argument:
Drugs are not good in general, so why legalize?
Counterargument: Sure, we do not deny that drugs can wrecks people,
but unemployment or being homeless can do that too. EVERY drug has negative
aspects, starting from cigarettes up to crack. But just as good have drugs
some good sides. Everybody knows that alcohol can make you addicted to
it, but everybody knows too that this does not happen because of a glass
of wine for dinner. It always depends on the amount and the use of the
drug. Smoking marijuana once a month won't let you immediately tip over
dead. The percentage of alcohol is measured and printed on every bottle
(at least in Europe), so everybody knows how much he can drink without
being drunk. With the illegal drugs is this of course impossible, because
it is also illegal to let them test. Another point is that everyone should
get the right to know by himself, what is good or bad for him. Some think
it is okay to relax with a drug, some do not. As long as they do not harm
anybody and just want to have a nice evening at home you should let them
decide by themselves. Nobody should rule another person's life.
Argument:
Alcohol and cigarettes are completely different!
Counterargument: That is not true. In many ways is alcohol for
example much worse than marijuana. Alcohol will always make you up from
a certain amount after a certain time addicted psychically AND physically,
but marijuana will make you "only" psychically addicted. Every year die
thousands of people from the consequences of alcohol, but nobody did die
because of marijuana. By the way, in some States in the USA marijuana
is used in hospitals to alleviate pain. Only because cigarettes and alcohol
are accepted in today's society does that not mean that they do not have
side-effects. Even medicinally and scientifically they are listed as drugs.
The argument that they are compared to other drugs legal does not work,
because the Netherlands proved the opposite.
Argument:
Drugs from which you can become addicted at the first time, are a different
matter!
Counterargument: People who try such drugs are usually completely
wrecked in every respect. They know what could happen with these drugs,
but their previous problems let them choose such radical "solution". Such
problems would have to appear after a legalization too in order to choose
to take those drugs. The probability that somebody just walks into a store
and wants to try heroine just for fun is very little. What counts here,
is to fight the unemployment, the housing problems and other problems
that cause the use of the drugs. After legalization can people who need
help go to a doctor without the danger to be arrested by the police. Drug
legalization would not harm people who never took drugs; it would help
instead people who already take drugs. Some might argue that some kids
try taking these drugs to impress their peers or whatever, but after a
legalization it would not be cool anymore, because every jerk could get
the drug, so the drug looses the image that you have to be cool to get
these drugs. A temporary, in every case acceptable variant would be the
medical assignment.
Argument:
It is the duty of a state to save the people not to let them use drugs!
Counterargument: If a state has a right for existence at all shall
not be discussed here. But assuming that the state would have a right
to exist, then it would be also the duty of it to guarantee all people
the opportunity of personal development. for some people the use of drugs
is included in the personal development. A lot of poets, musicians and
other artists only could create their today so famous works in this way.
Goethe was not an exemption. Even George Washington planted marijuana.
Besides that would the state, like already stated above, save a lot of
money with a legalization. Taxes could be raised in a totally legal way
and that money could be used for other things again, like the education
or the free time activities. Still today state issued drug prevention
works with a pattern of the 70´s in which a average drug case looks
like this: "I tried hashish, three days later I fixed, I had prostitute
myself and convince others of using drugs in order to finance my own drugs
(snow ball system). Once there was no heroine available, so I took LSD
to get me high, short time later I came into the hospital, intensive care
unit, because of a overdose, and died." That is contraproductive, because
it only produces fears instead of informing objectively of risks and side
effects like they are existing with alcohol and tobacco too. That should
be the duty of the state.
More
information and arguments:
Frequently asked questions - Hemp
|
