Canada Legalizes weed but why stop there?

Whether you agree with legal weed or not doesn't matter, but why stop there?  Legalize amphetamines like a.d.d. drugs.  Benzos are the only things you have to ween off of because of withdrawal risks (if I remember correctly) sure there's unpleasant withdrawal with other drugs but those aren't life threatening, so that's the chance you take.

Alcohol is far more dangerous.

sure but if legal weed is a logical thing, reasoning, why can't the same be used for other things including prescription meds?

Risk assessment?

ok, if amphetamines are ok for children as young as 5, how much risk is there?  And yet there is a legal age limit for weed and alcohol.  Seems rather inconsistent don't you think?  There is no monitoring type tests for kids on a.d.d. meds, no blood work etc.  I attended a talk way back on the subject of a.d.d. meds and I would have done a spit take if I had been drinking at the time, and I'll never forget, she said "There is no one who wouldn't benefit from amphetamines".  I'm trying to keep it specific and follow the logic starting with weed.  But if it is logical to make it legal, I'm trying to understand why that same reasoning couldn't or shouldn't be applied to other things as well that have low risk, including common prescription meds.  

Every single recreational drug, including heroin and cocaine, should be legalized, regulated and distributed by the government.

This will cut back on the billions spent on the "war on drugs," take drug dealers off the streets and reduce gang activity, provide clean and "safe" ways to use drugs, and take out a huge percent of the prison population, cutting our tax dollars down or giving us the ability to allocate our tax dollars to more important areas, and so on.

However doing that gives the government the ability to tamper with the drugs and kill off a bunch of people like they very well could be doing with fentanyl in the Downtown Eastside in Vancouver.... which, I mean... alright, LOL.

Government doesn't need to be in the business of making good personal decisions for the people.

People should have the right to choose to be stupid as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

I agree, that's why I say to have it regulated by the government. It'll cut back on the deadly gang wars and war on drugs so innocent people don't die. And if someone wants to shoot up an eightball of H all in one go, have at er and see you in Hell, lol

What does one have to do with the other?

if the logic is to legalize stuff that people want, that isn't considered all that harmful or has an acceptable risk, why stop there?

Because that's now how any legislative system works in any government I'm aware of. Any law is evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Has the Canadian legislature evaluated amphetamines like a.d.d. drugs to be:

a) what people want;

b) not considered harmful;

c) has an acceptable risk?

ah ok, that makes sense, hadn't thought about it along those lines.

"People should have the right to choose to be stupid as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else." 

Of which, materials designed inherently to alter one's consciousness, alter one's perceptions, and inhibit rational decision making invariably would result in.  

Thanks Margaret Sanger.

No, please, by all means, pretend some one whom is under the influence of meth can rationally control themselves.

Step up to the mic, go for it.

@Grey perrot

Margaret Sanger is more racist then the KKK.  Why are you thanking her?

@FaustianJustice

I don't think Grey parrot is on any drug.  I just think it's an SJW ideology.

Abortion good.

Eugenics good.

Margaret Sanger good.

55% of planned parenthood abortion clinics in Black communities good.

Orange man bad.

Why is abortion good?  I thought you were pro choice and not pro abortion.  Why is a disproportionately high amount of them in black communities?  Doesn't that seem a little racist to you?

Agreed. The government should only intervene when absolutely necessary to preserve the stability of the country. Drug addiction epidemics are certainly a threat to stability, but criminalizing all production and consumption of drugs in order to prevent them is an enormous overreach. The appropriate solution is to make anti-addiction resources easily available to drug users. In other words, use the public healthcare system, not the criminal justice system.

Because CNN FACTS says so. Also Obama and Hillary said so.

I think that consumption should be decriminalized, treatment for addicts made available, and that distribution should be heavily criminalized. Historically, this has been more effective for eliminating drug use than any other policy. Our current policy is the worst, which lets distributors off with a slap on the wrist while turning the prosecution of addicts into a side industry.

@Greyperrot

Apart from the fact that CNN has a left bias and is as biased as Fox, CNN actually wrote a pro life article (https://www.cnn.com/2014/01/22/opinion/hale-progressives-pro-life/index.html).  Almost every single politician is biased one way or another.  It's not like I use Donald Trump or Mike Pence as a credible source.

CNN is far less biased than FOX as CNN has an equal amount of people on the right like Juan Williams on the shows.

FOX (faux) bad.

CNN good. Friend of the people.

Orange man bad.

"CNN is far less biased than FOX as CNN has an equal amount of people on the right like Juan Williams on the shows."  Fox news has left wing people on their show from time to time as well.  We were also digressing from the main point.

You're probably right. My naive hope as a libertarian is that simply making treatment widely available will be enough to prevent drug addiction epidemics, but criminalizing drug production is probably necessary as well.