Now, i'm in favour of legalising at least some recreational drugs. I would put marajuana on the same footing as alcohol.
There's a bit in the Guardian disagreeing with me, so let's have a look through their arguements.
In attacking an advocate of legalisation, the piece is getting silly and bitchy:
"There are, it seems, no downsides to the government taking over the drugs market – just a road to unbroken harmony and state-sponsored highs."
it's worth noting how it starts, though that does not impact on the quality of the actual arguement. I won't go through the whole thing as it's long.
I don't like the way that the arguement is made, as it sounds more like a Daily Mail rant. Saying that legalisation will make doctors into dealers is silly:
"But who does the addict turn to when they want to come off the drug? Not the doctor to whom they are now linked, like the addict to the street dealer."
i'm certainly not convinved by the arguement that "The effectiveness of a government-regulated drug trade is already evident in the alcohol-fuelled violence that plagues so many of our cities,".
Surely it's better that these people are seen as wrong uns, and can get treatment, is better than just leaving them to suffer in the dark.
If anything, it seems like the author would like everything less healthy than apples should be banned.