If illicit drugs where sold as freely as alcohol and cigarrettes then I believe the problem with drugs would be far greater then with either of the other two.
Anyone who believes this only needs to take a look at the number of people smoking cigarettes nowadays compared with the number of people smoking them, say, 70 years ago. Back then almost every adult smoked. Nowadays most adults do not.
Because cigarettes are legal, controlled both in quality and supply, and heavily taxed the government has been able to influence their use. Users have contributed to the economy and to society. There is no real black market for tobacco. No-one loses their job because they smoke. Nobody is incapable of doing their job because they are addicted to nicotine. These are all functions of legality.
Compare this with Heroin, which was perfectly legal 70 or so years ago, and who's addicts numbered in the hundreds, if that. How many addicts are there today, and how much do they cost us. And exactly how much control does the government have over any of it?
And this argument is based on a fallacy that Heroin isn't freely available already. It's one phone call away. We all know someone who knows someone. Anyone who smokes dope gets it from somewhere, and chances are the that somewhere up the supply chain one supplier can hook you up with smack if you want it.
I've had Heroin. It was fucking marvellous. Really. It was utterly and unreservedly wonderful. I didn't get addicted and it caused me no health problems at all. I didn't lose my job or face criminal charges. I didn't go out burgling either, because it was free, pure, clean and supplied by the NHS. I got mine in an operating theatre in the Royal London Hospital. And I have never wanted any more.
Anyone who believes this only needs to take a look at the number of people smoking cigarettes nowadays compared with the number of people smoking them, say, 70 years ago. Back then almost every adult smoked. Nowadays most adults do not.
Because cigarettes are legal, controlled both in quality and supply, and heavily taxed the government has been able to influence their use. Users have contributed to the economy and to society. There is no real black market for tobacco. No-one loses their job because they smoke. Nobody is incapable of doing their job because they are addicted to nicotine. These are all functions of legality.
Compare this with Heroin, which was perfectly legal 70 or so years ago, and who's addicts numbered in the hundreds, if that. How many addicts are there today, and how much do they cost us. And exactly how much control does the government have over any of it?
And this argument is based on a fallacy that Heroin isn't freely available already. It's one phone call away. We all know someone who knows someone. Anyone who smokes dope gets it from somewhere, and chances are the that somewhere up the supply chain one supplier can hook you up with smack if you want it.
I've had Heroin. It was fucking marvellous. Really. It was utterly and unreservedly wonderful. I didn't get addicted and it caused me no health problems at all. I didn't lose my job or face criminal charges. I didn't go out burgling either, because it was free, pure, clean and supplied by the NHS. I got mine in an operating theatre in the Royal London Hospital. And I have never wanted any more.