if hard drugs are legal, do you think that should or should not be a basis for deciding on child custody between divorced parents?
Of course it should.
Should evidence of hard drug use justify social services going into a home to at least temporarily take away children?
Of course it should.
Basically, are you going to pretend that hard drug use by parents doesn’t pose an inherent threat to children?
Of course it does.
You know what else does? Alcoholism.
I think hard drug use poses a far greater threat to children. If I see a parent buying a bottle of hard liquor versus buying meth, I’m going to have a very different view of that, as it seems you would also. If hard drugs have a lessened stigma and are more readily available, more people are going to use. Parents addicted to hard drugs may let their children be exploited in addition to neglecting them. For this increased negative possibility, the benefit is what? Greater freedom for people to mess their lives up as drug addicts?
This strikes a nerve with me. You chose meth because it’s the obvious worst example, but the amount of children abused by drunken parents is staggering. All of the crap you listed is common in the homes of children living with parents that are severe alcoholics. For you to downplay it sickens me.
EDIT: Basically, I’m tired of this hypocrisy. Alcohol ruins more lives than hard drugs do. If you or anyone else are going to pretend to care about drug-users and the children (somebody think of the children!) then you have to be in favor of criminalizing alcohol too. If you’re not, then you’re a hypocrite.
+1
-2
I don’t buy the argument that if alcohol is legal then meth should be too because both can hurt children. I’m certainly not the one downplaying harm, righteous mfm.
I’m not righteous. It just hits close to home for me because it was a family issue for me.
Then I won’t pick on you for being on a high horse.
There is no hypocrisy in seeing a difference between hard drugs and alcohol, I’m just not a crazed absolutist. It’s true that addictions of any kind can ruin families and hurt children. You want meth legal and that’s why I used it as an example. You don’t want to draw a line even at the worst drug one might think of. A drug that, unlike alcohol, is addicting to anyone who uses it. Making judgments about where to draw lines is not hypocrisy, it’s the application of sense.
Well, obviously everything will be heavily regulated, much like cigarettes and alcohol are. That means sellers can’t advertise, or sell to anyone under 21 etc. etc.
I don’t see value in legalizing such harmful substances. Even when people only hurt themselves there is a social cost.
Even for pot there are social and personal costs. But I think you agree its effects and harms are much lower than other drugs. I don’t see the sense in jailing someone for mere use of it. Again, this is a value judgment and in no way hypocritical.