If all they did was light up, snort, inject, or swallow the shit.. I would agree that it would be a victimless crime.

But there are far deeper aspects of it that surround addiction.

Legalizing it would most likely introduce the drug to more of the population, hence rising the number of addicts that get hooked.

So yes there may be a added benefit to taxing and controlling it.. but there will also be a larger load on society to support, treat, and rehab the additionally folks that become addicts.

Drugs affect people differently.. but I would have to say in my experience, the addiction of coke, heroin, and some of the other narcotics outweigh those that are presently legal today.. never tried it myself.. just speaking of those around me.

In the end.. is it morally and financially worth it? I highly doubt it.

BTW.. I have no objections to running Billy's ads or telling the "real" story behind his demise.. society and most importantly kids need to hear the real story behind substance abuse.. no one is above it or can cheat its effects.

---

Is it financially worth it? Absolutely. The potential medical costs of treating a few extra addicts would be several orders of magnitude less than the cost of the prisons we are building to prosecute and cage millions of non-violent drug offenders.

I question how many addicts would truly be created if we legalized. Again, the number of smokers continues to decline. The number of caffeine addicts is stable. No matter how legal the drugs might be, you can't be intoxicated on the job. And legalizing drugs takes away a lot of the thrill of them. I've heard the argument that we need to protect the risktakers from themselves. Bollocks. It's the risktakers who are using the drugs when they're illegal. If we legalize them, they'll move onto some other thrill.

Besides, the very fact we would instantly destroy the infrastructure that props up the drug lords should be reason enough to legalize drugs. The moralists who insist on keeping them illegal could be considered, philosophically speaking, indirectly responsible for the violence and murder that surrounds the drug industry. They stridently claim that drugs lead to crimes against others. While that may be true (how often does some drunk asshole beat up his wife?), far more crimes are perpetrated by the people who take the most risk -- and thereby stand to profit the most from -- the traffic of illicit and therefore very lucrative substances.

Make drugs cheap, easy, and (relatively) safe, and their market disappears overnight.

---

Really.. lol.. that is classic rhetoric if I have ever seen it.

So those that oppose the death penalty are indirectly responsible for murders and serial killers as well?

And because you support such legalization, your philosophically are innocent?

What a crock of misdirection.. I can buy into the possible financial impact, albeit I would like to see a study supporting such a statement with the impact that these drug dealers and "thrill" seekers will just move onto another illegal act which they will be arrested, prosecuted and jailed for.

You statement is correct, some will move onto another "drug" or "thrill".. but that won't have judicial ramifications tied to them? Of course they will.. it will probably be some unregulated aspect of the culture. Thinking it won't is naive, IMO.

So do we just continue to say, okay, we have a problem, lets legalize it, tax it, and they will move on to another crime.

Reality is.. some in this world chose not to obey the laws of the society for whatever reason, by legalizing more isn't going to change their behavior.. it is just going to modify it into another direction.

---

LOL

I disagree, the subject that is continuing has morphed from Mays and his demise.

That is the hidden beauty of forums, topics spawn related discussion..

And I have to laugh a little.. Zero derailed an entire page or two of a topic in the main thread yesterday because it preempted his thread.. irony is humorous in doses.

BTW.. that last bit is intended in HUMOR. ;)

Topic.. Billy sure can peddle crap.. living or not.

---

Speechless and disappointed.

---

Sorry my opinion and maybe failed humor left you speechless and disappointed.

For the humor... it is just that..

For the topic morph.. yes it is off topic from the origins, but the topic creator and subject have moved in this direction.. which has a tie in based on the reported nature of Billy's death.

Should his infomercials be pulled.. no, it still streams revenue to the company and more importantly to Billy's estate.

Additionally, I don't think it should be swept under the rug, the reason that contributed to his death.. drug abuse. Which is turn begs the question.. how to prevent such a thing.

I could be completely wrong in my opinion..

BTW.. I am not saying it is wrong to steer it back closer to topic.. just I can understand how it got here.

---

No one mentioned anything about being off topic. I posted the subject. I didn't say get on topic or anything. I posted the subject. I haven't even read any posts, but maybe looked at one and it mentioned drugs so I assume it was about his death.

For those following this discussion, I apologize for my poor contribution which seems to have stalled it. I'll try to stay out of these discussions and gradually others as well.

---

Apparently I misread the Longtime quote and your post.. the mistake is mine. And I apologize for the error.

Carry on..

---

I just don't see how legalizing a dangerous substance is a good way of thinking.
"Victimless" crimes?
I bet drunks use the same thought line.
Yes, it's a small fraction that drink, drive, and then injure or kill someone. But if it's one of YOUR loved ones that is the victim in this case, i bet you wouldn't feel like it was such a great idea to make more mind altering substances legal.
Addicts destroy the lives of others. Thats fact. Putting more choices out there for those people is not a great idea.
Watch "Cops" a few times, and see the people that will steal to get a fix. I saw one dude on there the other day that admitted he spends $1000.00 a DAY on coke. Where does he get the money? Shoplifts and then sells the stuff he steals.
"Victimless" crime? Yeah......only because you don't SEE how much more you have to pay for items to pay for the stuff ripped off by these scum bags.
So....because they don't hurt someone physically, they shouldn't be locked up? Most criminals that commit violent crimes.......their first crimes arn't usually violent crimes. They work their way up the ladder, till one day they DO hurt or kill someone.
If you break the law, you SHOULD be held accountable and locked up! Maybe if we DID that more, we would cut down on the amount of VICTIMS out there.

---