It's not the meaning of responsibility nor self-control by any stretch. Now, if it were the case that we DIDN'T have as many drug related deaths or injuries, DUIs or drug-related crimes, then okay, you make a valid point. But we do, and I'm glad the government isn't just sitting back saying, "Naw, it's fine, they'll learn eventually." It's quite apparent that people HAVEN'T learned, despite all of the government funded anti-drug propaganda, programs, all of the ad campaigns, tight regulations and taxes they push on vendors. People have already expressed a lack of responsibility and self-control, over the span of many decades, and the figures are just getting progressively worse. Isn't that more than enough reason to tighten regulation? Or should the government just sit back and wait for a better reason? Or, maybe, by some miracle, everyone will suddenly become "responsible". You know how ridiculous that is.
I respect your argument that people need to take responsibility, and I agree that we do need the government to enforce laws and regulate things: otherwise, we'd be back where we were when Upton Sinclair was writing The Jungle
. However, what the government regulates and how is important.
What you are arguing is two different views on the same drug. In a different post that I'm not quoting, you were saying this is an argument between "why not legalize marijuana," and "why legalize it." And you admit that for medicinal purposes, it should be legal. But use for it amongst anyone else should be illegal. I see your reasoning, but I disagree. I mean, you're basically saying "people who want it legal, who aren't sick, are just a bunch of pot heads (something like that.) So why legalize it if you don't need it?" I mean, that's what I gleaned from your statements. You logic is basically: if you don't need it, it shouldn't be legal. Going off of this, you could easily take the argument further: "we don't need candy, it doesn't do anything for our health, and it's in fact bad for you, so it shouldn't be legal." You're treading a fine line. How far do you let the government control things? I don't need my literature because it really doesn't do anything for me physically, and I don't get exercise when I read, so I'll be less healthy if I'm sitting around reading all day. Let's make reading books illegal! I know that's an extreme example, but you yourself said people are stupid and don't know where to draw the line. Just because you think something has no value other than certain instances (here, marijuana has no value but for ill persons) doesn't mean it has no value, and shouldn't be legalized. I think country music has no value and says the same crap over and over, but I don't think it shouldn't exist (well...maybe
I do;P .) Since marijuana over all has very few (if any) negative side affects, I'd say yeah--why not legalize it? Why make something illegal if doesn't have to be? And also, not everyone who smokes pot, smokes it into the ground. Most people I know only do it recreation-ally. Yes, there are people who abuse substances, but if it wasn't one thing, it would be another: this type of person often has dependency issues anyway--has nothing to do with marijuana, which is not addictive.
I didn't realize that "lack of self responsibility" = "need for more regulation" was contradictory. I'm not sure if you have your head on straight. If you can't be responsible for yourself, you need someone to be responsible for you. Understand that the government has already given people an inch, and they fucked up--BAD. So why let them continue?
One of the big problems I have with many of your arguments, is the constant dependency on the government. Which, don't get me wrong, I'm liberal, and do feel the government should play a role in many issues, but there are things I also feel are just archaic laws left over from a time when people didn't understand much about cannabis.
Okay, so back to your argument. On one hand, you're saying, people aren't responsible, so someone needs to be responsible for them. But you're leaving an important thing out: the government is constructed of people. More often than not selfish people. Powerful selfish people. It's like, the way you're stating it (maybe not meaning it) is the government is infallible and needs to tell everyone what to do because they don't know what to do or how to do it. But if you're talking about the US, you're talking about a government who once protected the rights of slave holders. Who once said it was okay to implement laws which would limit who could vote, and at what age (Jim Crow laws and the time when you were old enough to die for America, but not vote for its leaders.) A government that once considered a married woman and any children to be property of her husband--and to be used however he willed it (child labor was okay and accepted--it was your right!) My point is, just because the government regulates something and makes a law of it, doesn't mean it's right and just. In this case, as well, I feel the law is unjust. You shouldn't go to jail just because you've smoked some marijuana. If you're a hard worker, and good at your job, you shouldn't be fired because you smoked at a party one weekend. Please tell me you don't want to give away all your freedom so someone else can tell you what to do in the case of something that isn't even harmful to you. Please tell me you're a little more into personal freedom than that.
Responsibility is not about fucking up, then falling over and dying because of it. It's about fucking up, and realizing you fucked up and doing what's in your power to fix it. I just don't see that kind of promise in our people.
Again, heavy drugs isn't the issue. You don't die from smoking marijuana.