Prohibition didn't work in the Garden of Eden. Adam ate the apple," says Fox, 68, looking relaxed in a polo shirt -- in contrast to his stressful last days in office. "We have to take all the production chain out of the hands of criminals and into the hands of producers -- so there are farmers that produce marijuana and manufacturers that process it and distributors that distribute it, and shops that sell it... I don't want to say that legalizing means that drugs are good. They are not good but bad for your health and you shouldn't take them. But ultimately, this responsibility is with citizens."
Read more:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2040882,00.html#ixzz1BboBrOP1
How does this tie into our notion of punishment and changing the antecedants. If you don't want someone to break the law, change the law?
This is ridiculous. It's like he's saying, "Here is some cocaine, it's really terrible for you and could ultimately lead to your death, buuuuut I can sell it to you for only $19.99!" Now I'm not saying that everything that is bad for us should be illegal, but if it's something we know is detrimental to us as a whole, why would we even consider making it legal. Pretty much all drugs were legal, back in the day, but didn't that change for a reason? We need to learn for the mistakes in our history, not recreate them,
I don't think it's professional for the previous president of Mexico to state that he thinks we should legalize drugs. However you really can't legalize marijuana and keep all other drugs illegal. People are going to continue using drugs whether they are considered to be legal or illegal so it really doesn't matter what laws are set. Punishment comes into play in this article because an individual who uses drugs will either be punished by breaking the law or will be punished by their body due to the negative effects of drugs. This article focuses on changing the antecedent (what happens before the behavior). I believe that Fox is looking at the fact that law against drugs (antecedent) is causing individuals to smuggle drugs and creating a violent environment. If the government is in charge of the production and distribution of drugs then then they can better regulate production and distribution and ensure that the processes are being done more safely.Not to mention that the government could tax drugs bringing in more money to the government. So, by changing the antecedent of making drugs legal it would possibly reduce violence due to smuggling/drug trafficing, provide more room in jails, bring more money into the government, provide the government with more control over drugs, and allow the individuals who will use drugs regardless of the law to get their fix.
I agree with everything you said. It would just be too hard to enforce it. Just like the drug war is out of hand, how can they honestly think this would solve it. There are pros and cons under both circumstances. I also agree that if they legalize marijuana, what drug is next and when does it stop?
Did he really just compare religion to legally selling drugs?
Fox makes somewhat of a good point in saying that production of the drugs should get out of the hands of criminals and into the hands of farmers and educated members. However, who is going to teach those people how to make and produce the drug? By making drugs legal it's not going to decrease the crime rate in Mexico. Understandably, the drug wars have been absolutely devastating in Mexico for a few years, however making the drugs more accessible does not seem to be a better solution. If someone wants to be violent, they're going to find ways to do so with or without the involvement of illegal drugs.
This one is tricky. Punishment, regardless the intent, seems to cause a backlash effect and in essence loses the term punishment, as it ceases to work. It may even become reinforcement; 'the man' takes your drugs away, what better way to get back at 'the man' by getting some more? Then you're reinforced with the desirable feelings of getting high AND the desirable feeling of having 'stuck it to the man'.
However, I can't help but wonder if taking away a punishment where one previously was would also serve to increase misbehavior. Going back to my babysitting days, because that's really all I know about punishment and reinforcement, letting the rules slide tends to make kids gluttons for whatever it is that they couldn't have before. When "no video games before bed" turns to "play them whenever you want", it's a miracle to get the controllers our of their hands for longer than a few microseconds. Perhaps the same could happen if all drugs were legal. Yes, eventually satiation is reached, but how long would that take?
I think this is ridiculous, drugs are not only illegal for what they do to your health, but for the addictivness and things people do when they use them. Not many people that are addicted to cocaine or meth have jobs, take proper care of their children, go to school, etc. Making these legal would not only hurt peoples health, but I think it would be detrimental to the economy and the safety of others.
Unfortunately, I somewhat agree with the idea of legalizing drugs. Personally I have NEVER done any illicit drugs, but I will admit that I drink, I have smoked a cigarette and I have been around drugs in my past. There are so many controversial issues with this one idea. No matter what not everyone can be happy with the outcome, that is just based on opinions. If we keep marijuana illegal, people will continue to find it, produce it, smoke it and so on. This will not stop people from smoking. However, if we legalize it, at least our government can make some money off of it, and it would create more jobs. The controversy is; if we legalize marijuana than should we legalize all other illicit drugs too. Now that is where I disagree. It is a very touchy topic.
I understand where Fox is coming from, during the prohibition in America alcohol was more popular than ever. Maybe if drugs were legal, they would not seem so forbidden, and therefore decrease the demand. And if drugs were distributed legally by professionals there would be a lot less people overdosing on drugs. A lot of drugs, such as heroin, have fillers in the drugs to make it not as potent, but occasionally pure heroin is distributed and an addict overdoses because from past experience the user had to use more to get his/her fix. The government could also have another form of much needed revenue.
There should obviously be an age limit on the drugs, but whose to say that marijauna should be illegal, but alcohol is fine? Punishment when it comes to drugs is obviously a deterrant from the majority of American citizens doing illegal drugs, but it also causes the people who are addicted to find these drugs in unsafe neighborhoods and causes the very illegal and very dangerous drug trafficking.
I've often thought about this debate, and have been on both sides of it-- having said that I think I understand more clearly the costs and benefits of legalizing some drugs to a certain extent. If you completely prohibit something it will more than likely cause a backlash and be more popular than ever-- I know that a lot of people do drugs, and i know a lot of people who have smoked or still do smoke marijuana, and I think whether or not it's legalized, that they'll do it anyway. I think that if it is legalized to an extent (can be bought in smaller amounts, and less potent) that people will find it less appealing, and we wont have to spend our tax dollars support people who decided to smoke a joint on their own hands without hurting anyone.
I believe either way that people will do drugs but I think that as long as they're not hurting anyone else, let them do it without legal consequence-- and only punish those who put others in harms way.