The bad people in the cartels very well may just continue being bad people- but without the lucrative illegal drug trade they will no longer be the most rich and powerful people in their society.
Is there evidence to prove that legal cocaine/meth/heroin being readily available for citizens would be good for society?
Making an accidental error on your taxes is illegal, but it is not a crime. You're given the chance to fix it, or assessed a small fine.
Setting up a lemonade stand without a license is illegal, but it is not a crime. You're told to shut down, or assessed a small fine (or more likely, not bothered by the authorities at all).
This is why people advocate for decriminalization, not legalization. Keep it against the rules, but make it a slap-on-the-wrist civil offense, not a crime you can be thrown in jail for.
This is how illicit drugs were treated before the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 added production, possession, sale, and use to the criminal code.
I fact I am pretty sure that since the alcohol prohibition era there's evidence that turning markets with a lot of demand into illegal markets is worse for society .
Look at Portugal. They treated drugs as a social issue and are making great progress.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radic...
https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalizatio...
As it stands, the prohibition on drugs has created a business that many find worth resorting to violence over, and it impacts people in Mexico who would never have chosen to get involved.
There's no good answer here, but letting addicts drop out of society and damage their health with legal drugs seems more moral than banning drugs and having bystanders suffer.
The fact that researchers can barely study schedule 1 drugs to determine if they should BE scheduled 1 drugs is a big red flag.
The disproportionate response, the people sent to jail for minor offenses, the....well, all the points in the post you are replying to that you didnt address.
How can you stick to your claims of morality if you don't consider ALL the impacts?
tl;dr Legalization makes sense, because even though more people end up negatively impacted, they are generally only hurting themselves.
Now imagine if we took all the money we dump into stopping people from getting high, and put it into helping people with addiction issues. Not saying it would work, but it seems like a good thing to try given that the current approach is a failure
I mean look at the opioid crisis. There is no insurance policy for addiction, plus, you are labeled as a dedbeat by the society. And only because doctor prescribed you something they should not have.
Without criminalization of addiction the opioid crisis would have been much easier to deal with.
You can use that as a template for other things as well.
Besides, I would much prefer people got addicted to mushrooms and cannabis rather than alcohol. The damage alcohol does to an addict is total and eventually lethal and irreversible.
Can't you argue that by making it illegal, you make it less available, therefore ending up with less people addicted?
If you can't even keep them out of prisons, how effective do you think making them illegal has been on availability?
Now addicts are 'taken care' by the justice system which is less effective and more expensive than social and healthcare programs would be if applied to the same population.
Addiction is not a personal failure but a coping mechanism in the face of trauma and failed social contracts.
Drug enforcement is a tool of selective oppression and unchecked profit for many actors, from enforcement agencies to incarceration. Prisoners are extremely expensive in tax money, and are treated inhumanely + used for forced labor. We as society seem to be happy to pay very high cost, including in money, to treat people horribly.
Prohibition is the main reason for substance prices to be high enough to support a powerful structure of organized crime which permeates and corrupts our society.
Money continues to be the major force behind policy changes in the US and until we make corruption illegal (lobbying and campaign finance are out of control), our politicians and laws will serve corruption.
"what’s the significance of dreams and What can they teach us?"
From what I understand about dreams, no one has the answer to that question. It seems like they're going to make unfounded claims which makes me worried about their info.
Do they tend to pose speculation as truth or are they avoiding pseudoscience?
That the elites of the world are happy to have drugs being illegal, as it is a way to channel unemployed, violent youth who want to make a quick buck.
I mean, think of it this way: If you are a poor, violent and traumatized youth, and drugs were legal and you wanted to make a quick buck, you'd turn to robbery or worse, kidnapping/murder. As long as they prohibit something that people want, that cohort will always have a way to make a quick buck without turning to robbery/kidnapping/murder.
Well, if you start talking about Reagan in the 80s, there's significant evidence. Not as a way to channel unemployed, but to have extra governmental funding for covert operations.
If individuals mostly make decisions based on a number of internal currents, conscious and unconscious, the same must apply to collectives.
Is there any evidence of such a "rise the lowest forbidden fruits won't impact the crop"?
Without data, one could just as well argue that it favors criminal paths by smoothing the road.
Think of it this way: if you rule death penalty for illegal music download, you further banalize evil by broadcasting the message that the worst social behaviors is ethically equivalent, as far as law pretends to pursue some ethical aims, as something as harmless.
Nota bene: I don't imply that death penalty is acceptable for any kind of judicial sentence. Human errors and possibility of political abuses should be sufficient points to definitely end such a practice out of any legislation that pretends to respect its citizen dignity.
I would like to make a point that the effect doesn't have to benefit everyone equally. Historically powerful factions of society have pushed things to the detriment of the majority and the furtherance of a tiny minority.
Power should be challenged at all times.
Then when something is that addicting and you can't afford it anymore... then what? Wouldn't it create more crime, more robberies, thefts, possibly murders in the process?
I think we have a pretty good balance, and some drugs are slowly becoming legal as we learn more about them and we can setup systems to control their distribution.
Regarding your other speculation about decriminalizing drugs, we don't have to speculate. Other countries have already done it and seen improvements in their society. Crime and addiction rates go down.
We have a horrible balance. Every single day we have prohibition, drug convictions ruin more people's lives and it makes it harder for them to get help for their addictions.
Every day we have prohibition, SWAT teams have another chance to run wild with lies https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/10/14/l...
- Racist origins which disproportionately targeted minorities. It allowed police and prosecutorial discretion to arrest more minorities and give them longer sentences.
- Stopped medical progress. Finally a flood of studies are showing us mushrooms, marijuana, MDMA, acid, and more have positive medical uses.
- Gave law enforcement massive budgets which are further inflated with asset forfeiture. We see SWAT raids based on lies ruining lives and killing innocent people.
- Prevented people from relaxing with safer alternatives to alcohol.
The war on drugs needs to end.
No drug should be illegal. Drugs are a health concern, not criminal.
Replace public funding of law enforcement with public finding of rehab and other mental/physical healthcare services. It'll be cheaper and society would be healthier.