This is a poor analogy. Home made alcohol is essentially illegal for distribution. We know it as moonshine.
Drugs are not illegal because of their potency. Illegal drugs are illegal because they are not regulated, which means they cannot be taxed and they cannot be inspected for safety and quality purposes. Cocaine isn't regulated in the US because of several reasons, but mostly because it doesn't have a medical purpose. If cocaine had a medical purpose that was deemed useful, you can bet your ass the US government would regulate it and distribute it.
It's funny how people on this board want accountability when it comes to guns, which have extreme regulations. They want to blame the gun manufacturers and the NRA for the ease of access to guns to people that shouldn't have them. And they want to blame them for the amount of damage an individual gun can do (i.e their potency if you will). Yet these same people want no accountability for the thousands of people who die of drug abuse from illegal drugs. What about the ease of access to unregulated drugs? Why shouldn't the more potent drugs that have no medical use be illegal?
Last edited by Carp; 12-15-2014 at 04:53 PM.
Well no it wouldn't put all the thugs out of business, the same as liquor stores have not put an end to people making and selling moonshine. Sure it would have an affect, but there illegal drugs are still going to be an issue regardless.
And the point is, why would the US make a legal business out of drugs like cocaine and math? They have zero medical benefits at all. You're best argument is tobacco. But chewing/smoking tobacco has the most regulations of probably any industry in the US and has been fairly common for centuries. And despite the financial benefit the US could see from promoting tobacco use, the US seems to be doing more and more to shrink that industry as well.
You said:
So then I asked:And the point is, why would the US make a legal business out of drugs like cocaine and math? They have zero medical benefits at all.
If the answer is no, then I'm not sure your point on the first statementSo in order for something to be sold in this country, it has to have a medical benefit?
You said, "So in order for something to be sold in this country, it has to have a medical benefit?"
That isn't what I said at all. For one, I am not talking about any random thing you sell. We are talking solely about drugs. Secondly, I certainly never said it was a requirement. We were talking about regulation of cocaine and meth and it's certainly a fair point for why the US doesn't regulate them. They are recreational drugs with a pretty unappealing stigma attached to them. What motivation would the US have to regulate such a thing?
Last edited by Carp; 12-15-2014 at 11:12 PM.
well, we have used cocaine for medicine before and it makes no sense to say we couldn't use it again
"For there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it." Amanda Gorman
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"
It was used in Coca Cola as well. What it was used for 100 years ago is of little relevance today. There are much better and safer options.
the thing that makes most drugs unsafe is that there is no regulation on them and you have no idea what the person that made them put it in
herion deaths aren't usually cause of the drug itself, it's cause it isn't pure and has other **** added to it. same with drugs like blow, MDMA, X etc
it's the same reason why places that ban booze or is harder to get, like in India, there are a good amount of deaths from a bootleg liquor cause they added things that shouldn't be added to booze and it ends up killing a large group of people cause they were cutting corners to make a profit instead of being safe
"For there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it." Amanda Gorman
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"