Disclaimer: I am actually in favour of legalising drugs, but to answer your question....

The state does have a responsibility to protect you, even from yourself. Hence things like warning labels, etc.

Also, for most countries, there is a social and economic cost associated with drugs. Even leaving aside criminal activity (i.e. committing crimes to feed a drug habit), there is a cost for healthcare, lost productivity (heavy drug users are often unemployed) and in social welfare.

This is the same argument applied to increasing controls on smoking (taxes, plain packaging etc).

However, my main problem with all this is that it just doesn't work. The "war on drugs" is a total failure. People continue to use drugs.

While I'm all in favour of legalising cannabis, it's a TERRIBLE election strategy.

First, you instantly play into the hands of the "moral majority".

But far more important... you're relying on stoners to vote. That's like relying on big corporations to pay their taxes.

Its called lobbying or legalised corruption. It's a very cost effective business strategy.

Its basically all in the video, there are physical barriers already out there, it is a long term problem that has been improving lately, there is probably not much more protection a big wall would provide over a symbolic fence (only effect is length of tunnel/ladder required). Everyone agrees on illegal vs. legal, prostitution and drugs can not be eradicated, only limited, by making the little girls illegal you push them in peril. One could improve the situation by cooperating with the government of Mexico and border states, border towns, by making the legal waiting line clear and bearable, Trump is the elephant in the porcelain shop on all of this, making things worse.

Simple solutions to complicated problems... never mind.

Are americans really competing with illegal immigrants for jobs?
Is it that hard to get an education in the US that would get you past the dish-washing stage? IDK.

Why are the rules for employing illegal imigrants so hard to uphold? Could it be because it is impossible? Because no-one else would be willing to do the work for the money available in the local economy? How would the overall situation change if rules on "legalising" some of these people were relaxed instead of tightened? If they can hold a job for months or years without commiting any law violations besides going past the validity of their work permit they deserve at the very least permanent residence over all the trash living on social security just because they were born a few miles north.

If they are living and working and not doing any wrong, you should keep them regardless of... whatever.

BTW I happen to agree with what you wrote about that commercial 100%, Bob. Just probably from a different point of view. Its propaganda fairy-telling without a good point.

If I really wanted to move to the US I would make absolutely sure I had a plan on what to do there. Not just get in at all costs. Like the Budweiser guy (but better beer).

They are (or soon will be) in the rest of the civilized world.

Most countries are moving forward in this area. For an example see Ireland (aka Catholicistan) legalising SSM.

If America wants to be left behind, so be it. I'm truly sorry because I have a lot of love for your country. It's a beautiful place that's given us some amazing science, culture, and social advances.

But if you insist on being dragged down by your version of the taliban....

I'm off to start learning Mandarin.

It's insanely cheap and potent.

TBH the only way I think it could be nipped in the bud in the west is by legalising heroin to push the price down.

Junkies will find a way. If the easiest way is a drug that will kill & injure them many many times faster than a more costly and harder to obtain alternative, then that's the drug they will gravitate towards.

Much like with the rise of crystal meth.

Crack and heroin require them to maintain a fairly substantial income to fund the habit. Addictions to Crystal and Krokodil can be sustained on a relative pittance.

Good argument for legalisation then!

Easy answer (he kinda mentions it):

The money saved chasing black market pot + tax excised from the legalised sale of pot = more treatment for addiction.

End of fucking story.

ps. You can tell the type of parent she is that she's so busy off crusading to save people that her daughter is getting high and drunk easily. Lemme guess, extremely strict parent who has closeted her kid so much that she's gone off the rails after getting a taste?

I think "Blame Canada" really needs to be linked to this sift (but have no idea how to do so... = ) because this woman is Sheila Broflowski...

Yeah, they do.

And funnily enough, no, I'm not tolerant of your homophobic, racist nonsense.

In case you missed it, the fucking Supreme Court told you to get over it. For fucks sake, Ireland (previous winner of the "most catholic place on the planet" 70 years running) legalised gay marriage.

So yeah, the game is over, your team lost (in fact, they got utterly spanked). You're just the spoilt kids throwing a temper tantrum on the field while the rest of the civilised world has gone to the bar.

Eventually, it'll start to rain, and (like you did with slavery and women's rights) you'll come to the bar and feel embarrassed that you made such a dick out of yourselves in the first place. Luckily for you, by that time, we'll be drunk and in a good mood, so we'll forgive you.

I agree with everything else you said, but "self-medicating" is bullshit. In the specific case of marijuana, there's plenty of evidence that we should legalise it and use it for treatment, but as a general point, there's no such thing as "naturally occurring medicine".

Medicine is only medicine after it has been tested and found to work. Otherwise, it has either not been proven to work or been proven not to work.

Big pharma might be dicks, but at least they're using science.

Dude, you need to chill. Have some weed or a glass of wine or something. The pot legalisation will work itself out over time. Once enough rich people realise how much cash is in it, it'll become an industry with lobbyists. Maybe Snoop should start a super PAC.

You need to draw a line somewhere. Humans, from the very beginning of humanity, always tried to get wasted, so you won't be able to pull of another prohibition era. On the other side you can legalise everything and decriminalise everybody (I see no reason why a methcook shouldn't go to jail, fuck Heisenberg). However, the US government is extremely shitty at drawing lines as they give the chalk away to lobbyists and other people whose job depends on prohibition and criminalisation. Maybe we should let actual drug and addiction experts in on this.

No-one gives a shit what your neolithic deity thinks. The same boring arguments were trotted out when interracial couples wanted to get married.

Here's the thing, most people are already in favour of gay marriage. It's just past the point where more than 50% of the US population lives in a state with legal SSM. Most of the developed world has either legalised gay marriage, allows civil unions or recognises marriages performed in other countries. You have more in common with Uganda than Utah.

Enjoy being on the wrong side of history (again).

Heroin is indeed a nasty drug. However, when it's managed, people can actually lead normal, even productive lives and still be addicts. It was legal in the UK up to the 1950s as diamorphine and we didn't see anything like the kind of problems we have with it now.

That said, I'm in favour of decriminalising it, not legalising it. It might sound like a non-distinction, but there's a difference between allowing anyone to go out and buy heroin from a pharmacy and prosecuting some poor fool who made some bad life choices.

As for Trance, he continues to push his childish agenda in the face of reality. That Tolstoy quote is cute and sounds great, until you realise that it is completely and utterly wrong.

You're kidding, right?

We've had Arizona almost pass a law that legalises discrimination, and Uganda actually pass a law that where homosexuality is punishable by death.

Meanwhile 60% of Americans don't accept the reality of evolution.

I wonder where you get the idea that people DON'T listen to really religious people.

And I have watched Chomsky, and I agree that he's a good debater. That said, I've never seen Dawkins be anything other than polite even when dealing with unbelievable idiocy.