With drugs like meth, heroine and fentanyl in society, trillions will be lost. That’s not prohibition’s fault, that’s the consequence of drugs + humans. There’s no such thing as drugs + humans = nothing lost. No public policy can mitigate that.
My experience leads me to believe you’re nullifying the trade offs, as I said in my first comme…
With drugs like meth, heroine and fentanyl in society, trillions will be lost. That’s not prohibition’s fault, that’s the consequence of drugs + humans. There’s no such thing as drugs + humans = nothing lost. No public policy can mitigate that.
My experience leads me to believe you’re nullifying the trade offs, as I said in my first comment. I’ve lived in a community with adults who chose to use, and with certain drugs and certain people, there’s just no such thing as responsible use in the privacy of one’s home. It’s hard to believe until you see it with your own eyes. Yes, prohibition doesn’t end it, but because drug use goes up when legalized, it is empirically and undeniably containing it. The incentives need to be use = difficult, abstinence = easy. What Canada is doing, I fear, is making use = easy.
Rolling into drug use will be swapping a policy that “doesn’t work” for a policy that works so much worse that you’ll realize prohibition was working better than you gave it credit for.
Lastly, I respect that you’re passionate about this, Mathew. I’m calling a stalemate with you. I won’t be replying anymore and that’s out of respect for your time and mine. Take it easy.
The vast majority of people can use drugs (just like alcohol) in a recreational manner without getting addicted.
When I was younger I did just about everything under the sun. I was in the military, then went on to get a BA in accounting and later my CPA and MBA. I would still party on occasion till I got married and settled down.
I knew plenty of other people that did the same. They still went to work, paid taxes raised kids etc. Responsible use is the norm.
And for the VERY small segment of people where addiction is a problem it should be treated medically not criminally.
With drugs like meth, heroine and fentanyl in society, trillions will be lost. That’s not prohibition’s fault, that’s the consequence of drugs + humans. There’s no such thing as drugs + humans = nothing lost. No public policy can mitigate that.
My experience leads me to believe you’re nullifying the trade offs, as I said in my first comment. I’ve lived in a community with adults who chose to use, and with certain drugs and certain people, there’s just no such thing as responsible use in the privacy of one’s home. It’s hard to believe until you see it with your own eyes. Yes, prohibition doesn’t end it, but because drug use goes up when legalized, it is empirically and undeniably containing it. The incentives need to be use = difficult, abstinence = easy. What Canada is doing, I fear, is making use = easy.
Rolling into drug use will be swapping a policy that “doesn’t work” for a policy that works so much worse that you’ll realize prohibition was working better than you gave it credit for.
Lastly, I respect that you’re passionate about this, Mathew. I’m calling a stalemate with you. I won’t be replying anymore and that’s out of respect for your time and mine. Take it easy.
The vast majority of people can use drugs (just like alcohol) in a recreational manner without getting addicted.
When I was younger I did just about everything under the sun. I was in the military, then went on to get a BA in accounting and later my CPA and MBA. I would still party on occasion till I got married and settled down.
I knew plenty of other people that did the same. They still went to work, paid taxes raised kids etc. Responsible use is the norm.
And for the VERY small segment of people where addiction is a problem it should be treated medically not criminally.