On the one hand, drugs are harmful substances which damage communities and cause people to do things they wouldn't normally do.
On the other hand...
People who understand the dangers of drugs that stay drug-free would be in much higher demand to employers who want competent workers! This could mean a pay raise for every drug-free person in America! As long as the new underclass stays medicated, our future is secure.
In order to protect our status though, we will need legislation requiring you to have a clean drug test before you vote. If you can't operate machinery under the influence of drugs, you certainly shouldn't be electing politicians who run the country.
What do you think?
- Anonymous1 decade agoBest Answer
I understand your position and logic in this and I can agree somewhat in theory. The area I cant agree with is right at the beginning when you state that drugs cause people to do things they wouldnt normally do.
If drugs were legalized what recourse would you have for someone breaking in your home, running you down in the street and committing general mayhem while under the influence?
Yes, they would be treated much the same as a drunk driver. Just as they should be. But the drugs that are illegal are hallucinogenic. I see this as comparing apples and grapes.
The other factor I do see is from addiction. Even if drugs were legalized, once a person has a monkey on their back, they will do anything to get their new legal drugs.
Again, I do understand what you asked. Drug free people could in theory command higher wages due to being drug free, but I see a downside that is not good.
PS,,,,,I do see the government jumping on that bandwagon solely due to the additional taxes and revenues from the sales though.
Best of luck and I hope this is useful to you
- 1 decade ago
I think you have a very unbalanced question lacking some information and making some incorrect statements.
Not all drugs are bad. Not all people who use drugs do bad things. Not all drug free people are competent, and not all people who do bad things use drugs. Thus making your global statement false.
Drug tests are very expensive. They are prone to false positives.
Making a urine test mandatory for voting would be like reinstating the poll tax or the grandfather clause. Since drug use does not correlate with competence, it wouldn't make sense to rely on it to determine who can and cannot vote.
Would you really submit to someone watching you pee in a cup?
"If you can't operate machinery under the influence of drugs, you certainly shouldn't be electing politicians who run the country."
The capacity to make decisions is not determined by the ability to operate machinery. People aren't really good drivers while they're eating or sleeping, but that doesn't imply they're stupid. There are some things, like drugs or napping, you shouldn't do while driving.
Drug users are not limited to the "underclass". People from all positions in life use drugs. Some use them responsibly, some do not. Many brilliant minds throughout history have used drugs; Albert Hoffman, Lewis Armstrong, Jules Vern, Robert Lewis Stevenson, Aldous Huxley and Sir Walter Scott.
If people were educated about drug use, and I don't mean the propaganda to which you've obviously been exposed, they could make more informed decisions.
It's prohibition causing social harm, not simply drug users.Source(s): http://www.drugpolicy.org/homepage.cfm
- AmbivalenceLv 61 decade ago
It is my opinion that elicit drugs like "Meth", "LSD" or "E" should NOT and I clearly repeat N O T be legalized. However lets be practical, no matter what the result is... People still smoke and drink, anyone and everyone is 1 MPH from manslaughter...