Sarcasm or no?

Doesn't make people not do drugs, but it does rid them from society through natural selection in theory.

It is not governments matter what i drink, smoke, eat, etc.

Any prohibition t is just supporting gangs and bribing.

Edited 5/8/2016 01:42:15

I don't care if they do it; I just want them dead and not sucking society

@GeneralPE

Tobacco Deaths Annually: 500,000
Cannabis Deaths Annually: 0

Yeah I think the cannabis users are really harming society. Especially when I typically see things like peer pressure into smoking cigarettes and couples smoking together (after sex?)

Cocaine, Heroine, Meth, whatever are all manufactured to make you feel good, and they do, but they eventually kill you.

Cannabis also has other uses, such as:

Paper
Cloth
Resin
Providing Calories
Rope
Wax
Pulp
Fuel

And it's very efficient:

1 Acre of Hemp produces the same amount of paper as 2-4 Acres of Trees
Requires no chemicals (pesticides, herbicides, etc)
Quality is higher
Easier Recycled
Ready to harvest 120 days after growth

Good point benji, the overall issue is cigarettes, the largest issue by far.

Cigarettes are a cancer of society, no pun intended. Unfortunately, smoking tobacco and all the crap you mix with it to get a cigarette has been culturally ingrained into society. I don't see them going anywhere.

Really? No one on Earth died from smoking weed? I call bullshit.

And it isn't about deaths anyway. Potheads are incredibly stupid (I speak from experience), they don't care about anything; they do nothing but think about pot. Smokers may kill themselves, but at least they can function in society.

It's true. No death from overdosing on cannabis has ever been reported. It is a gateway drug, however.

But people still get cancer from it.

You have no right to tell people what they can't buy or sell. Also , taxing the heck out of drugs means you've done nothing to change the problem. Drug dealers don't have to compete with big pharma and it doesn't change that the government isn't god and can't enforce crap.

I don't care about pie-in-the-sky fantasies about liberty. I don't want people being a cancer on society.

Oh, you want to get rid of the government?

When we get rid of government, in theory, we'd be a society based entirely on economics.

But in practice, we become no less than barbarians, raiding and fighting each other with no restrictions. We kill who annoys us, we murder the man who stole our cookies. We do the do against a certain gender's will, we cannot grow crops for fear of being razed to the ground.

There cannot be liberty without government. It cannot be democratic, it cannot be oligarchic, it must be a Republic governed by strict Law. There is no alternative, there is only what works as a Government.

It is from this basis of a Lawful Republic that we then branch off into governments that represent a nation's demands, culture and economy.

To think that a Republic is the only form of government is idiocy. It has only be implemented a few times until the 20th century, and yet mankind continues on.

That's the same idea that if we all raped each other to reproduce, and we just stopped raping each other, we would die out. You don't have to organize society through violence.

Tribes and bands are governments, so no, we have not had full practice. We can grow crops, no ones going to burn down your crops at random because they "can".

I think we can all agree that banning drugs begets more problems than it solves, and frankly, do what GeneralPE says, put them under a "vice tax", but don't kill smugglers or anything...since it'd be legal...

Well, given that human ambition, underlying insecurities and other Freudian nightmares plague human, if they can destroy your crops for their gain, they will. And likely than not, they'll do it just because they can, for no other reason.

Tribes and bands are not an effective governing structure for many people.

If everybody was separated into tribe of a couple dozen, we'd all be worse off for that.

If all the artists are separated by borders, how can there be emulation, reviews, improvement etc.

A lawful republic is the basis for more advanced Gouvernance structures, such as the Democratic Republic, a Parliamentary Republic, a Roman-style Republic etc. Republic is simply the best way to represent a people. An oligarchy can carry on quite well, a total democracy can't sustain.

The Republics are the shining jewels of any globe. The oligarchies will always oppress the people under a system of minority rule, the democracies will always oppress the people under a system of majority rule. These might be working systems, but they are not the morally correct systems.

The Republics are the shining jewels of any globe. The oligarchies will always oppress the people under a system of minority rule, the democracies will always oppress the people under a system of majority rule. These might be working systems, but they are not the morally correct systems.

Gosh, stop trying to make up your own words, I told you this before in this case.

republic: A state where sovereignty rests with the people or their representatives, rather than with a monarch or emperor; a country with no monarchy.

democracy: Rule by the people, especially as a form of government; either directly or through elected representatives (representative democracy)

There is no incentive at all to burn down all the crops in your immediate area, you will starve after a few months. And we aren't being set into tribes, we're being set into nothing.