Should this be legalized? Yes, if... - PsyLetter #2

Should soft drugs (ex. marijuana) be decriminalized?

Before you continue reading, please think about it yourself and give an answer that you feel. Come on!

...

The question is just like how many people think about important issues in society.

Let's look at more questions... Then comes my answer.

• Should gun use be legal?

• Should the rich pay higher taxes for the sake of equality?

• Is the death penalty ethical and should it be an option, or is it inhumane?

• Should the voting age be lowered to 16?

What do these questions have in common? Think...

...

Well. Then let's start the analysis.

Should soft drugs (e.g., marijuana) be decriminalized?

What does the question ask? The problem is that it sees the world in black and white, and for some reason, it wants to create a black and white law. Why does it approach it in such a way that EVERYONE should have the opportunity, or no one at all?

Aren't there individuals who use it responsibly, and those who absolutely do not, and endanger themselves and others?

Isn't there such a thing as being able to educate someone about their use, and that they can be used in a positive, recreational way?

So this is the problem. That it puts everyone, every case, under one hat. And of course, that's how society stands on any collective decision, the outcome will suck. There are logical, intelligent solutions where a balance is maintained by man.

Want to win the war or drugs? Portugal might have an answer.

It's like asking - should we constantly eat harmful fast food all day or not?

What if we eat as much as is enough and from what is healthy and necessary?

So, soft drugs should be legalized for those who know how to use them well - for their own good and for the good of society.

7 Potential Health Benefits of Cannabis

Should gun use be legal?

For whom, and when, where?

For the one who has proven to live a responsible life, has good judgment, and does good, moral person - definitely give him a weapon to protect those in need, or himself. But the one who is an immoral, criminal, etc., person, do not give.

It's not hard. You water the plant that bears fruit. You don't water the weed.

You reward the dog when it does what you asked - which, in a good case, is good.

People should also be rewarded with greater opportunities and responsibilities when they do good, act in the common interest of humanity.

Should the rich pay higher taxes for the sake of equality?

Which rich person, and to what extent? The one who spends on unnecessary things, produces the negative for society, he doesn't need the money.

The rich person who uses it well, for the good of society, should keep more of his money. So, we don't generalize here either. Life is not black and white.

For example, the expensive cars, watches, which are really surreally expensive - I find unnecessary.

There may be people for whom this is their life's passion, dream, and okay, let it be fulfilled, let them buy it - just perhaps, that money would provide work for more people through a good business model, company, who would then change society in a positive direction.

For a rich person, a more expensive car will not give much more pleasure, especially not real pleasure. It does not fulfil any need. But the price of an expensive car can be life-changing for another group of people.

Global Cost of a Car - The most and least affordable countries to run a car

Is the death penalty ethical, and should it be an option, or is it inhumane?

It depends on who, when, why.

Are we talking about an incurable serial killer? Who does not want to learn? Who just consumes the resources of society, but does not want to give anything back, just to pull down, to poison?

Then I consider the death penalty justified, because if he does not want to live in a way that helps our lives, then why would we give him the opportunity in our communities if he only poisons? In your body, you wouldn't give a chance to a virus out of love if it just kills the host body.

Of course, judging someone's suitability for society is not so much possible with the current system. However, in a more advanced stage of society, it is.

Should the voting age be lowered to 16?

What kind of 16-year-old are we talking about?

The majority of people, even though they have passed 16, have no grounded, logical decisions in their lives, let alone in the election of a leader.

There may be young people who have studied society, are sensible, and moral. I would definitely give them the right to vote.

Everything I'm talking about assumes something. A psychological system, psychologists who are capable of correct, objective, accurate judgment. Who can't be bribed, whose goal is really to explore reality, truth.

So, these earth-shattering questions that I read so many debates about, I think they miss these clear, basic elements. There's nothing to argue about. It's just that the current system is honed to this - black and white, either this or that.

Yet there is always a middle way. Everyone can benefit.

Now imagine that all this debate, which is being discussed - like the tension between blacks and whites, or between men and women - stretches on infinitely, a huge drama lingers around it, meanwhile, it's absolutely about nothing.

This generalization should be forgotten.

What do you think about this? In your opinion, what questions are there that have an obvious solution, but society doesn't really understand? Do you have specific examples?

Write me the answer!