Neither would I employ someone with facial tattoos. Neither would I employ someone who still lived with his parents and played Dungeons & Dragons.
Why not? Don't you think that's a little prejudiced?
So can... almost everything. Music, movies, books, sports, love, sex, food, alcohol. I can give you examples of every one of those things altering someone's behavior leading to the endangerment of self or others, and not just isolated incidents.
Music, movies, books? Are we talking about a direct effect or where one has been used as a scapegoat? Books: A Catcher in the Rye (murder of John Lennon), Music: Marilyn Manson (Columbine/other murders), Movies: Oldboy (Virginia Tech Massacre). And throw in video games too, like Manhunt and Grand Theft Auto. What is the actual cause of their behaviours, generally people go straight for those and yet end up ignoring the underlying problems involved, the real much deeper reasons.
If someone drinks and gets into a fight, we punish them for the fight. If someone drinks and causes an accident, we punish them for the accident. We punish those who do not drink responsibility. It would be ridiculous to punish everyone who drinks as if they've already caused harm. Yet when it comes to other drugs, the same logic does not apply?
Generally we punish them because they can limit the amount of alcohol they drink, it is possible to drink it without becoming addicted or feeling its negative effects, but it can be addictive and people can drink too much and over consume. Yes, the responsibility is on them for getting that
drunk in the first place. I certainly think there should be something done to reduce the negative effects of alcohol, the problem is different people have different limits and at least barmen can refuse you alcohol if they think you've had enough (E.G. I got refused alcohol and was given a glass of water instead, even though I was still aways from my own limit). I don't think banning it is the right direction, because as far as alcohol is concerned there are probably better ways to reducing the problem than outlawing it (and thus creating other problems).
On illegal drugs, the negative effects can be from a single dose and not just from abuse.Short term effects of Heroin:
Reduced mental function, slower rate of breathing (and can reach to the point of respiratory failure)Long term effects of Heroin:
Scarred or collapsed veins. Pulmonary complications. Kidney Disease.Short term effects of Meth (even in small amounts):
Hyperthermia, increased respiration. Increased heart rate and blood pressure. Cardiovascular collapse. Convulsions. Aggressiveness. Paranoia.Long term effects of Meth:
Violent behaviour. Psychotic behaviour. Delusions and paranoia. Homicidal or suicidal thoughts.Short term effects of Steroids:
Changes in behaviour.Long term effects of Steroids:
Glaucoma, Cataracts, High-blood pressure, Heart Disease, Diabetes, Obesity, Acid Reflux, Cushing syndrome
I am not talking about overdoses either, because that's over consumption and over consumption happens with alcohol and food, so I don't think overdoses would be relevant. Also I've excluded anything caused by unsterilised needles or 'tampered' drugs (like how some put glass into cocaine)
These are something we do
know about these drugs. I've picked 3 that stick out in my mind.
Also, if my uncle hadn't become addicted to drugs, he would have had a much better life and he wouldn't have schizophrenia either (yes, schizophrenia has been linked to drug use, even Cannabis), it has been a serious problem for him, nobody will employ a man with his mental stability, he has been in and out of mental hospitals, he has even attacked people (like my grandmother), he was constantly scrounging for money, he lives off of the government now because there's no way he can work. Last I heard things have been improving and he's getting off of the drugs. But the problem is, he only started out as an intelligent guy at university who tried drugs with his mates but it just escalated from there. Yes, he is responsible for his actions because he should have said 'no' to drugs in the first place. You might forgive him for being ignorant of the effects it might have, but these days we have a lot more information on the effects of drugs and it is widespread, some of it is propaganda, I agree, but not all of it.
Unfortunately, yes, there's the issue of organised crime an to be honest, I don't actually know the best solution here. Obviously we don't want more people taking drugs and at the same time we don't want organised crime. That is a difficult one I think, I think with the 2 options, the outcomes are negative ones. I don't think how we would deal with alcohol applies either, heck, some 'weaker' drugs might not apply either. Also, what'll happen to organised crime should the ban be lifted? I'm not convinced these people will just give up their life of crime and get an honest job, there's certainly other illegal things that can be smuggled and heck, illegal things people already make money off of, like illegal weapons. Would the decrease of drug smuggling mean the increase of other types of smuggling, like that of black market weapons trade?