Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
This is about doing the doable. You're falling for the typical canard. "Oh, let's criminalize everything that's bad for our health."
Well, that's not my argument; it's more nuanced than that. I realize we can't invoke prohibition or eliminate junk food, but we don't have to expand the list of harmful substances, people can conveniently injest, especially with our come-one, come-all health care system.
If it were doable, which it's not, I'd be all for banning junk food, tobacco and alcohol, but I'm a realist. Expanding societally acceptable substances should not be a social policy. It makes bad public health policy and it's a bad idea.
|
Could a tax on weed not offset some of cost of the negative health effects? In effect are we already getting those supposed negative health effects, no tax into the coffers to cover those extra health related costs, the costs of enforcement, the costs of interdiction, the cost of associated crime all so that we don't expand that list for a relatively benign drug?
To me it does not make economic sense, and that is not even to consider the collateral effects and possible infringements on personal liberty.
I sincerely agree with your ideas about doing what is doable. That is why I think you give up when you're just pushing a policy based on tradition.