Yazad, that is one amazing line of argument, I had to read it over and over again to see if you really did mean what I thought you had written.

Domestic abuse is a totally different issue from individual freedoms and you are mixing two different things up just to make point that is absurd at the best.

It is almost like arguing that people should be legally allowed to stab others on their legs than the chest because it is less lethal.

And please, do you honestly think kitchen knives and marijuana are really comparable?

I quite like the idea of “total ownership,” but honestly it is one of those things that work great in theory and never found in real life.

I am sure even socialism and communism have sounded and felt great (everyone being equal and all that crap), but in practicality it ended up being quite the opposite.

If you exist in a system, it will have its rules (liberal, conservative, cartelish) and no one will be totally free or independent because you can define the structure based only the vocabulary the system itself provides and one thing that it does not provide for is total independence or freedom.

Other than that, all this makes for real nice things to think over, but in reality we will always live in worlds with limits and rules; unless you want to live like good old Crusoe that is.

The legalization of some drugs that are illegal today could be one of the most humane beneficial acts that can happen today in India. Imagine the amount of spousal abuse/hooch deaths that can be reduced, if the masses had access to marijuana, instead of relying of country liquor and tobacco.

The legalization of some weapons that are illegal today could be one of the most humane beneficial acts that can happen today in India. Imagine the amount of shooting deaths that can be reduced, if the masses had access to swords, instead of relying on guns.

It is more humane to stab someone in the hands and legs rather than in the chest. Don’t you think that a society that allows stabbing in the chest but bans stabbing in the hands and legs is doing something wrong? So what do you think society should do?

When talking about alcohol nobody is talking about the simple consumption of a couple of drinks after work or even going out and getting drunk with your friends (as long as you don’t drive afterwards). They are talking about alcoholism which is a defined medical condition.

Marijuana I think is a whole different category as it is not addictive but the rest of the drugs are all highly addictive.

If you think that injesting marijuana is the equivalent of stabbing someone in the hands and feet and if you want to ban marijuana on that basis, then there is no reason why alcohol should be allowed, because that is equivalent to stabbing someone in the chest.

Bottomline is, you can’t choose an analogy and shy away from its implications.

The point is crime followed by punishment isn’t a zero sum game. Society loses and the victim lose even after the punishment. That is, if you are murdered for money by an addict in need of a fix, the fact that the addict may be punished is no recompense whatsoever to your family and those who love you, it does not fill the void in the productivity of society that has been left and it only increases the burden on the rest of society because punishing anyone costs money.

To make the arguments you make is therefore to completely miss the point. Its equally missing the point to suggest that to ban drugs is in the same league as banning kitchen knives. One rather fundamental difference is that drugs lead to addiction and that creates the conditions and mental states that are the cause of criminal acts. A knife on the other hand is just a tool- the presence of a knife does not make you want to stab someone. A drug addict desperate for a fix however IS willing to do almost anything to get what he wants.

Please check that it is I, not Yazad who has posted this article. Please direct criticisms here. I completely admit that this article barely scratches the surface of the entire argument for legalization of some drugs.
the issue is admitedly a complex one.

which is why i ask for a gradual removal of constraints, to study the effects in society, first with the most used drugs like ganja and then with others.

And again, the statement made was a rhetorical one. It is not the strongest of arguments, i admit. but nevertheless it is true.

Marijuana is a herb and there is very little chance of “polluting it”. so, it is safer than country liquor which requires an elaborate distilling apparatus.

It has a calming, as opposed to an aggravating effect on humans. so, the chances of spousal abuse diminish. If we go by the prices of cigs in india today, a factory rolled mary joint should not cost more than say, double of that.. so, for 5 bucks, a guy gets high and is not beating up his spouse.

quizman, if your reply refers to ex-ante solutions to crime prevention, then this is quite an off-topic reply. It may need a post on its own. But briefly, i think that a propserous economically and socially liberal society will give people very little incentive for crime. Even people who want to experience domination and other stuff, could do it in BDSM brothels.

Anant, most crimes committed by drug adicts are mainly because their fixes are made exorbitantly expensive by banning them. Ganja is a hardy crop that can grow almost anywhere. In a free market, its value would be pretty low, comparable to coriander. There is no reason for the addict to commit crimes solely for the sake of getting money for his fix.

So, legalisation actually reduces the chance for crime. And by freeing police resources, it increases chances for real crimes to be prosecuted.

I would hesitate to call it off-topic. The idea is that individual liberty of one does not impinge on the liberty of another. As Anant wrote, with your plan you are merely transferring the costs to society. Not an ideal libertarian solution.