Reply to post: Re: Economics 101 and morals

Blind justice: Google lawsuit silences elected state prosecutor

sed gawk Bronze badge

Re: Economics 101 and morals

Drugs are not evil. They are contra indicated for some people and in some cases contribute to poor decision making. The issue is most drug users quietly go about their business preferring not to become an anti-prohibition lighting rod at the cost of their liberty, livelihood and family.

Hence the main visible cohort of drug users are the problematic ones.

I'm a bit too old now to have much personal interest in the issue, but anecdotally I know several people with unimpeachable morals, good decent people, who like to consume drugs, which they fund by working in responsible jobs. I'm sure you know some people just them, though given your stance I'm sure you'll forgive them for not being entirely forthcoming.

We actually devote significant resources to keeping the dodgy people in business, we lock up their competition, thus we ensured that the people willing to take stolen goods in exchange for narcotics are still in business, can you imagine boots/wall mart/${big_corp} doing the same? In case the point is too subtle, we collectively subsidize the illegal industry by keeping it from being required to pay taxes and file accounts.

Why not take the morality out of it, help the needy of all stripes and tax the consumption and sale of narcotics in a sensible manner, rather than the current taxpayer subsidy of the illegal industry?

Final thoughts, in my country, the U.K. it's easier for a kid to buy weed than it is for the same kid to buy a beer. That seems like a pretty good argument for making it all legal, and easy to control.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019