Higher risk of that, yeah. But again, how does banning drugs help? they'll still find a way to get their hands on drugs. I feel like you know near to nothing about drug addiction or addicts, and you keep proving that more and more.
Still doesn't stop people from those countries from getting their hands on drugs.
Banning drugs help because laws are necessary to govern society and maintain order.
Look, what you're saying is that there should be no laws to restrict drugs because people will get their hands on them anyways. By that logic, murder and rape should not be illegal because criminals are gonna kill innocent civilians either way.
In order for society to function, we need laws that can control people and lead them in the right direction, regardless if the rules are broken.
Making drugs illegal will give courts and other law enforcement officials the power to arrest individuals who break the law.
I don't want my tax money going to punishing addicts instead of helping them. In any case, you care enough.
So basically, what you're worried about is your tax money...
If your tax money is what you're worried about, then do you realize who's gonna pay for all the drug users' health bills? Healthcare in the U.S. isn't cheap. It's easily several times more expensive than the cost to punish criminals.
Like I said before, drugs will put people at higher risk for cardiovascular disease, brain damage, seizures, respiratory complications, liver problems, kidney failures, and mental health issues.
If drug addicts start lining up at the hospital with no health insurance, somebody is going to have to pay for that.
And your tax money is the first thing that the government will use to pay the bills.
Not to mention, the drug addicts will produce children with even more health problems. You're going to have a whole new generation of addicts that are in poor health.
The cost shouldn't even be part of the discussion here. The health and well-being of society is the main focus..
If you really want to help out the drug addicts, the first step is to eliminate what's actually causing them health problems to begin with.
Says who? You do know being an addict doesn't mean being high or intoxicated 24/7, right? A drug user can drive a truck or operate heavy machinery, depending on the drug, how addicted he is, and how often he takes it. An alcoholic can still drive without an issue, sober, but he'd still be addicted because he'd consume tons of alcohol after work. Philip Seymour Hoffman, despite doing drugs, was still giving out great performances.
Yeah, they won't hire drug addicts, but they'd have to know the addicts are actually addicts. And as far as I recall, aren't republicans for lowering welfare budget? And I think it's the non-addicts who're draining more of the budget than addicts. I don't know how many addicts are on unemployment benefits though, or how many of them were able to get said benefits. It's not easy.
As far as I recall, marijuana/weed have been cited to be safe and have far more positive effect than any other drug. Yet it's illegal. Drugs aren't illegal just because they're dangerous and bad, they're also illegal in order to get more people jailed.
A drug
addict will obviously be intoxicated. That's the definition of addiction. Same goes with the alcoholics.
The only difference is that alcohol doesn't last very long in your body. Which means if a police stops a drunk driver, it's easy to prove to the court that the driver was drinking irresponsibly a few hours ago.
The same cannot be said for drugs because drugs can last several days in a person's bloodstream. People who take drugs regularly throughout the week will be intoxicated for
up to 7 days.
That means if they use marijuana the night before, they will still be considered intoxicated when they drive the next day.
Maybe you can give out great performances while being high, but driving on the freeway is an entirely different matter.
I doubt it's hard for an employer to tell whether their applicant is high or not. People can tell stoners and crack addicts apart from the general population. And besides, some companies to require their employees to undergo drug screening.
I agree that marijuana/weed is not that dangerous of a drug, but drug screenings
don't only screen for cannabis.
Marijuana might have positive effects for temporary medical relief, but it still results in slower perception as well as interfere with your awareness.
how would that even work? Are they gonna come to everyone who applies' homes and either say "hey you look like a drug addict, NO BENEFIT FOR YOU!!" or "you look clean, you get all the benefits!"??? Because that's a horrible solution. And if they're asking for help, then they should be given help.
And how do you know there's no problem in other countries?
Alcohol is socially accepted because it brings in money for the government, and there's no point in banning it. What benefit does alcohol provide? there are tons of alcoholics, many who turn into bad people when they drink or drink too much. And then there's drunk driving, and a lot of people have been killed by drunk driving. I've rarely heard about addicts getting into car accidents or addicted drivers killing someone, not compared to drunk driving. Drugs aren't so dangerous either, as long as they're done in moderation. With that logic, most drugs shouldn't be banned as most of the complications come from doing too much or frequently.
And it won't stop them from doing cocaine or heroin in prison as well, or relapsing when they get out. Arresting addicts is dumb, and better energy can be used to arrest people like pedophiles (one or two whom Trump defended/sides with), bankers (hurt our economy with their deceitful ways), and etc. I believe there are also stats out that black men caught with drugs are more likely to get jail time and more likely to get longer jail time than white people. Makes one wonder about the law.
I wasn't talking about a solution. I was just replying to your statement about "drug addicts not asking for help". By applying for unemployment benefits, it's obvious that they are requesting government assistance. If they want help, they need to comply with the government's rules, which means passing the drug tests.
Again, I can't necessarily speak for all the European countries, but I'm quite familiar with the Asian culture. They don't have drug problems like here in the U.S. because their laws and penalties for taking drugs is a lot stricter.
Additionally, families discipline and prohibit their kids from using drugs at an early age.
Drug are highly opposed by the majority of citizens in Asian societies.
As for benefits of alcohol, there are scientific studies that show people who drink alcoholic beverages in moderation have reduced risks of heart disease, strokes, and diabetes.
There are actually numerous health benefits in alcohol if people drink responsibly.
And even if we were to assume that prisoners use cocaine and heroin in jail, it's still not gonna affect society. What prisoners do in jail is up to the correctional facilities.
Also, why not arrest cocaine/heroin users, bankers,
and pedophiles?
I don't see a reason why they can't all be put in jail...
Nevada is really ranking in the tax dollars from that and prostitutes are cleaner/safer.