Okay, well, first of all, all this high-falutin self-righteous sarcasm is really obnoxious. But moving on:
Like I said before the illegalization of alcohol only created more crime.
This is true. Partially because (A) people who drank suddenly became criminals and (B) because of the more serious issue, organized crime. Be sure to factor out the former.
Illegal drugs are for the simple minded.
Philosophers and great thinkers the world around have used illegal drugs historically to expand their understanding of the world. As with any substance, including foods, caffeine, sugars, drugs illicit a response that your body is capable of producing (e.g., your body doesn't produce NEW hormones when you're on an illicit substance - it produces more of existing ones). Many believe that increasing the production of particular hormones, and thus enhancing particular thought-responses, they are able to comprehend different aspects of the very real universe.
But it is clear that society can not legislate morality. This is why marijuana must be legalized. People will do this drug anyways, for any number of reasons.
This is true - if history has shown us one thing, it's that you can't fight social wars through law. The war on drugs was idiotic. Like a bamboo shoot, you have to bend with the storm, not stand firm - if you try to do that, you snap. It would have been much better if they legalized it, controlled it, discouraged its use when necessary, and provided help to keep its use as safe as possible.
This in it self will harm the users while the intelligent accumulate more wealth. Why do you think cigarettes are legal? Because the government knows they can’t stop smokers and they want the money they make from people buying them.
However, you're promoting intelligence, but not good action? Many, myself included, like to think we're beyond Darwinian evolution. Shouldn't we be promoting right action to our fellow man, rather than exploitation?
People think they are free because they have the choice to do drugs. But what they don’t realize is they are not free nor will they ever be. Are any of us really free?
So you're talking non-vacuous contradiction AND whether or not we have free will? Don't get me started =D Frankly I don't even see why you brought this up. It sounds terrible and it doesn't really make a point.
There is a word for people who are free of these addictions, it is called an adult.
Addictions are often physical, not just chemical, and this generalization above all is what I DON'T like about your point. There is nothing concrete that makes an adult, and addiction/non-addiction would be at the bottom of my list if I had to write one. There are things that adults go through that they went through their entire lifetime, just in varying amounts. e.g., there are very few people who discover themselves in full totality. As one Mr. Cat Stevens put it, they're all "on the road to find out". We all deal with insecurity, fears, and to our dying days, there is still a lot about life we don't understand.
What have I tried to pass as fact that is not?
I would have to ask "what have you tried to pass as fact that
is"? Here are the things you said that I consider fact:
- Humans are not all the capable of making good decisions all the time.
- This is why we have laws. Laws are supposed to protect us, even if it is from ourselves.
- it is clear that society can not legislate morality.
- People are still doing marijuana even though it is illegal
Here are the things that I think are opinion, or flat out wrong:
- Illegal drugs are for the simple minded
- The only reason why drugs are still around to this day is because they make the people who are smart enough to stay off of them wealthy.
- This is why marijuana must be legalized [so the intelligent can exploit the simple minded]
- we must let the people who think it is alright to do marijuana be able to do it
- This in it self will harm the users while the intelligent accumulate more wealth
- There is a word for people who are free of these addictions, it is called an adult.
Notice a little disparity there?
Let the simple die out and let the complex rule.
You imply that complexity is desirable and that simplicity is expendable? The so-called complex would cease to exist without the simple. Simple fact. I hate to bring it up, but slavery, immigration, and cheap labor are what make modern society possible. So you may think you're better, and who knows, it may be true, BUT - the "simple" as you put it are just as, if no moreso, necessary that you. We only need a very few complex, but we need a LOT of the "simple". So, the way I see it, you extraneous complex are the more likely to die out.
I should also point out that you're alikening wealth to complexity, which is absurd.
The top 1% profits from the bottom 99%. It's only 1% because it's hard to be one of those people - and they're not necessarily the "complex". Sometimes they're just business savvy, sometimes they're just ruthless. Do you think there's room in there for you?
Not to mention that Mensa, a society for the top 2% (gauged by intelligence, not wealth), arguably a filter for the complex - but many of their members are garbage men, the homeless, and middle classers. Complexity does not dictate ambition.
Finally, everyone, I'm calling "troll" on this guy, and really, the worst kind. The kind who sparks debate and decides to switch his argument up every few posts.
Yes, you DID suggest that the "simple" should die out. You DID suggest the "complex" should make money off the "simple". To say then that you didn't just makes this a waste of time.
Don't expect to hear from me again.
