This could be really bad: More people using them.
It could also be really good (well better in some ways anyway): No more external issues of money, and crime, that are associated with this.
It could also be really good (well better in some ways anyway): No more external issues of money, and crime, that are associated with this.
Meth is mostly about self destruction. Granted, tweakers tend to be dicks, but still, your analogy is just a little bit hyperbolic. We should all have the right to destroy ourselves however we see fit.
Also, wtf? You're telling me I can't have a rocket launcher now!?
I definitely agree with you on this point, however exclusive self destruction is not possible in the vast majority of cases. Anyone that is financially or emotionally dependent on an addict experiences some destruction when they destroy themselves. If there is anyone that has no connections to family, friends, companies, or country, I agree, they should be allowed to do meth. I don't think there is anyone like this though. ;-)
Similarly, using meth is a personal issue for the meth user.
(The only reason people make it at home and blow up their buildings is because it's illegal to manufacture it safely. If you could go to Walgreens and buy your meth, you can bet that there would not be many exploding meth labs. This "problem" is caused by its "solution".)
As for kids, well, kids simply don't have a developed enough brain to make proper decisions about a substance as addictive as meth. The argument here is purely biological and doesn't really need a defense. I'll preempt the usual counter argument by saying that if we could quantify decision making ability, I'd be all for using that instead of age. But age is the best we've got right now.
As I said before, if it doesn't affect anyone else I don't really care what you do. Parents can do whatever they want (drugs or otherwise) if it doesn't affect their kids or other dependents. In addition, anyone with a job needs to consider their responsibility to their company. But hey, if there's someone where none of these connections apply, s/he can do whatever they want. I certainly wont judge.
Definitely agree. Judgment should stand. Sentencing should adapt.
Another reason why alcohol shouldn't be illegal is that almost all users are functioning, contributing members of society. Meth isn't even close in that regard. I'd be surprised if more than 5% of regular meth users have a positive net effect. It's just too addictive and potent.
That being said, I think the penalties for consuming too much alcohol should be on par with drug related offenses. Further, any crime committed while under heavy influence of alcohol (assault and rape come to mind) should have it's minimum sentence doubled. And as for parents who beat their spouses and children while drunk? I'd be fine with throwing them in jail for 20 to life depending on the damage done.
A less extreme measure is to revoke a persons right to purchase alcohol after X number of alcohol induced crimes. People do make mistakes, and we don't need to throw the book at first time offenders. However, a repeated pattern of alcohol abuse is not something that should be tolerated any more than the use of meth.
... not to mention, habitual usage doesn't exactly lead to safe behavior, which is inflicted on others.
I'm not a drug regulation advocate, but it's important not to paint Meth as a victimless drug. The first target may be yourself when you use it, but the collateral damage is not insubstantial.
A better analogy than a rocket launcher might be hand grenades, if we're sticking to small armaments as the analogy.