As I have said before, all of this would certainly still leave many problems - most especially the harsh realities of addiction - unsolved. The choice, however, is clear. Do we want addicts to rely on state support, or on petty crime and drug cartels?
Doesn't seem to me that much is done about the addicts of tobacco\nicotine -- they just get access to tobacco. They area having areas where they can 'use' being restricted due to the side effects of smoke not due to the side effects of addiction.
Alcohol addicts get a little different treatment -- when they reach the point of being unable to function in society. But there is a social cost to letting them continue at that point.
Both of these addictions result in added medical costs to treat side effects of 'using' and those are born by the medical systems as well - another social cost regardless of treatment.
So treating or not treating has social costs.
The question comes down to letting people have the freedom to do in their personal lives what they want as long as it doesn't hurt other people ...
... and then picking up the issue when it does begin to hurt other people, and balancing the social costs of allowing continued freedom versus the cost of treatment\behavior modification.
I personally favor a cigarette and alcohol tax that pays for added medical costs - it would be like buying medical coverage with every purchase.
Marijuana would be easy to put into the same framework as tobacco from a market and tax point of view, and thus makes an exellent first level trial program. We may even find that cigarette companies, given the opportunity, would prefer to grow one versus the other.
Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.