Drug Use?

[A_Wanderer]

I saw a question, and was wanting some other peoples answers.

"From a moral standpoint, is it worse for individual citizens to destroy themselves with bad choices, or for government to assume the right to make personal, private choices for the citizenry?"

I think that I tilt towards a system of narco-capitalism, where accountable sources for hardcore drugs can exist and operate in a market system. Single use means of delivery, standardised dosage and purity perhaps even synthesis of new drugs that are appealing with out as many negative side effects.

The degree of regulation would probably be a function of the society ~ the end member anarchy level freedom would be offset by the civilizations view that government will protect the public good. Unlimited freedoms can only exist at the margins of civilization, if the price of these people screwing themselves is more of other peoples money being spent treating them then controls will be demanded.

You are always going to have junkies in a freee society, procecuting a war on drugs only drives the black market, wastes a shitload of money, makes the suppliers more canny and wins a lot of votes from the anti-drug public.

 

[AchtungBono]

I saw a question, and was wanting some other peoples answers.I think that I tilt towards a system of narco-capitalism, where accountable sources for hardcore drugs can exist and operate in a market system. Single use means of delivery, standardised dosage and purity perhaps even synthesis of new drugs that are appealing with out as many negative side effects.

The degree of regulation would probably be a function of the society ~ the end member anarchy level freedom would be offset by the civilizations view that government will protect the public good. Unlimited freedoms can only exist at the margins of civilization, if the price of these people screwing themselves is more of other peoples money being spent treating them then controls will be demanded.

You are always going to have junkies in a freee society, procecuting a war on drugs only drives the black market, wastes a shitload of money, makes the suppliers more canny and wins a lot of votes from the anti-drug public.

I'm sorry Wanderer but I don't agree.

If you say that there are always going to be junkies in a free society and its a waste of money to prosecute them then the same thing can be said about ANY criminal activity. Why bother prosecuting thieves and murderers? If you are lenient towards one criminal element then why not be lenient towards ALL criminals.......

......and YES, I equate drug dealers with thieves and murderers - because the ultimate result of drug use is shattered lives and death.

btw - I hope you are safe from Larry where you are (same goes for ALL the Aussies on the board.....).

 

[hiphop]

Re: Re: Drug Use?

If you say that there are always going to be junkies in a free society and its a waste of money to prosecute them then the same thing can be said about ANY criminal activity. Why bother prosecuting thieves and murderers? If you are lenient towards one criminal element then why not be lenient towards ALL criminals.......

......and YES, I equate drug dealers with thieves and murderers - because the ultimate result of drug use is shattered lives and death.

you may equate drug dealers with other criminals - but would you also equate drug users? after all, they don´t hurt others, like thieves or murderers do - they only hurt themselves.

if it would be legal to use drugs, there were no more dealers, since it would be cheaper to get your shot at the drugstore with a doc watching so that its all clean.

sorry, but your arguments don´t make sense.

 

[Liesje]

I know that what you see on TV is not reality and bla bla bla...but every Sunday night I watch this show called Intervention and it's really opened my eyes. I don't know anyone that's suffered from a hardcore drug addiction, so it's really helpful for me and has really changed my views on drugs and addictions. Every Sunday they document the lives of two addicts and every Sunday I see perfectly nice, loving, compassionate people with all the potential in the world destroying themselves because of things that happened in the past that were NOT their fault (usually past abuse, rape, molestation or disownment from the family because of sexual orientation, accusing another family member of rape, or parents that are just plain in denial).

I don't condone drug use, but I think it's a waste of time and money to be fighting a war against drugs when the people who are getting arrested and jailed are typically the users/addicts who are the ones that really need help and support, not to be dehumanized and tossed into prison. I'm not sure that making more drugs legal would help in any way, at least from the perspective of the addicts, since there are gazillions of addictions that are already legal (eating disorders, gambling, alcohol) and a drug addiction is psychologically the same sort of thing. However I do think the government could do well to spend more time helping people that need help than prosecuting people that don't need to be prosecuted.

 

[nbcrusader]

Re: Re: Re: Drug Use?

after all, they don´t hurt others, like thieves or murderers do - they only hurt themselves.

If only harm could be limited to the individuals (which is still bad). Think of the relationships shattered by drug use. Recreational drug use is not done in perfect isolation. Others are affected, and it usually is in a negative way.

 

[ShellBeThere]

i haven't read that much on this issue to catch all the arguments on each side, but soooo many of our prisons are filled with people there only because they used drugs. And then the others because they sold them. All the death and crime related to drug use...imagine if it were legal instead for a second. What would happen that isn't happening now? Do people think there would be lots more junkies? I just don't think so. Wouldn't it take away a lot of nasty criminal element and become sorta just like the alcohol industry or the tobacco industry? Isn't part of the hell-like descent some addicts experience exactly because they have to go underground and hang in all sorts of unseemly places to press their neurochemical buttons? Especially in a society where all some of us need to do to get ourselves medicated is visit a good doctor who'll fix you up with amphetamine-like anti-depressants or downer tranquilizers-- why not just skip the HMOs and let people self-medicate with supervision and regulation? Cocaine used to be dispensed as an anti-depressant, ya know. If people were going to their local dispensaries for uppers too often, maybe they'd get a chance at some talktherapy and a life-change instead of a chance at the state penitentiary and a criminal record preventing them from getting a job.
and 'drugs' like marijuana would be happily everywhere and available for the myriad medicinal uses it could have if researchers were actually allowed free access to it.
I don't think lots of folks would suddenly be tuning in, dropping off and shutting down, or whatever...it would just be less law enforcement waste of time and more people-focused energy, more of that freedom we so value. If pot were instead a pharma product damn well better believe nobody would be talking about its downsides. See the recent report that the numbers of *kids* being prescribed anti-psychotics is rising enormously? Off-label uses to control 'temper' in kids with ADHD and such?! Or even out "moods" in 'bipolar' children?! Those things are major tranquilizers, pure and simple. The newer generation ones are perhaps slightly less deadening than the older ones, with slightly reduced side-effect profiles, but these are being given to kids now as though they're candy. We're certainly not anti-drug as a society...it just depends on where the profit potential is. I'm off for another cup of starbucks!
I went to get a cup yesterday at my local Kroger supermarket, and gave them my punchcard (buy 9 get the 10th free or whatever) and they took it, said oh we're not using that program anymore because people were buying so many that they were getting a free cup constantly. I said jeez, were they buying for their whole office and using the cards and they said no, just for themselves...we're a well-caffeinated society, that's for sure!

cheers all!

 

[ShellBeThere]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Drug Use?

If only harm could be limited to the individuals (which is still bad). Think of the relationships shattered by drug use. Recreational drug use is not done in perfect isolation. Others are affected, and it usually is in a negative way.

I think an important distinction is that between use and abuse.
And I think keeping it all in a dark unregulated corner makes it all worse and more negative, and criminalizes people to add insult to injury. It would be an interesting social experiment to try legalizing/regulating it instead of trying to stamp it out, I can't help but think.

 

[hiphop]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Drug Use?

If only harm could be limited to the individuals (which is still bad). Think of the relationships shattered by drug use. Recreational drug use is not done in perfect isolation. Others are affected, and it usually is in a negative way.

that´s very true.

still, I think we have to leave it to the responsability of the user.

Look what drinking does to some families. But you wouldn´t jail someone because he drinks a couple of beers? You´d jail him for beating up his wife at home when he´s drunk, right.

Do you think it is a crime to affect others negatively when its not direct? I think there´s a difference betwen a gangster or thief and a drug user. First does it on purpose, hurting other peop,e to get something. The drug user takes drugs, ok, and that affects the people around him just as if he was ill. Is it fair to criminalize that?

 

[Irvine511]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Drug Use?

If only harm could be limited to the individuals (which is still bad). Think of the relationships shattered by drug use. Recreational drug use is not done in perfect isolation. Others are affected, and it usually is in a negative way.

as has been said before, alcohol has destroyed countless more lives and families than any drug, ever.

what about cigarettes?
what about sugary foods loaded with partially hydrogenated vegetable oils?
what about the stomach-stapling for people addicted to food?
what about not using seatbelts or wearing a helmet?

it's really due to cultural prejudices, and sometimes racism, that we treat drug use and abuse as worthy of declaring a "war" on. drugs are bad. but so are other things. it's just fantastically easy to demonize drug users and effectively turn users and pushers into a scary "other" that's out to harm your children so that politicians can thump their chests and vow to protect Ms. Ohio Soccer Mom from evil people on the playground seeking to harm her little angels as opposed to declaring "war" on, say, the fast food that does as much if not more harm to far, far more people.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Drug Use?

If only harm could be limited to the individuals (which is still bad). Think of the relationships shattered by drug use. Recreational drug use is not done in perfect isolation. Others are affected, and it usually is in a negative way.

Relationships are not a right, they are a form of social contract between individuals - this does not equate to a violation of the no-harm principle any more than me being upset if a friend commits suicide.

 

[BonosSaint]

Legalize and regulate.

 

[VintagePunk]

Legalize and regulate.

Yes. And implement a medical model to treat abusers/addicts, rather than the current punitive system, which is so obviously not working.

 

[verte76]

I agree, I think alcohol is the worst possible drug for destroying relationships and entire lives. Yet it's legal while marijuana is not. This is schizoid, to say the least. At least marijuana has medicinal value. I don't believe alcohol does.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Worse possible?

Most common I will grant you but alcohol isn't in the league of heroin or methamphetamine.

 

[verte76]

I'm not as familiar with cases of heroin or meth as I am with alcohol. Alcohol has impacted my family, heroin and meth have not. So maybe I'm not qualified to do comparison.

 

[VertigoGal]

Re: Re: Re: Drug Use?

you may equate drug dealers with other criminals - but would you also equate drug users? after all, they don´t hurt others, like thieves or murderers do - they only hurt themselves.

dunno where you got that idea.

Of course alcohol destroys families, lives, etc. You don't need meth to really fuck up a family. However many or most can enjoy it socially. And, it's impractical to attempt to eliminate it at this point.

But when we start talking about meth and heroin (I don't mean pot here)...yes, we all have this notion of our "rights" and the like, but government does have an interest in things like the "common good." Many things are done in the interest of society regardless of whether they seem to violate individual rights. I don't know what kind of hellish society some of you are picturing where everyone is free and even encouraged to go to the doc for their weekly, daily dose of methamphetamines. This is on the verge of some dystopian sci-fi portrayal of the future.

Honestly, I really really wish alcohol wasn't around (I'm sure I'll some day have a different opinion ). But it is and no one's going to change that. Pot...maybe for medicinal purposes. Legalizing it wouldn't be the worst thing ever, but I don't see the urgency (although it's possible doing so could actually make it harder for minors to have access to it, I'm not sure). But meth and heroin and crack...I guess I'm really against personal rights, but I see no place for a legal market for those in society.

 

[anitram]

Single use means of delivery, standardised dosage and purity perhaps even synthesis of new drugs that are appealing with out as many negative side effects.

The war on drugs is a joke, but to suggest that we should invest into R&D of new generations of narcotics for no purpose other than to feed an addiction with lesser side effects is going too far. Realistically, pharmaceutical R&D is one of the most expensive, least cost-effective things you could invest your money in. As it stands, drugs are overpriced in order to cover this overhead and public institutions and research institutes do not have enough funding. To redirect it into narcotics is an awful, AWFUL idea. Awful.

 

[A_Wanderer]

If it isn't marketable there would be no reason to attempt it. I am not saying that is what should be done, I am not saying that is what would be done. Having a degree of harm minimisation would be a result of a regulated market or widespread acceptance and takeup of a narcotic product (plus the idea of having consumers dying off certainly wouldn't leave a particuarly large set of consumers - social pressure and associations against hard drugs can be a tool against it).

 

[VertigoGal]

I also want to add that I do think many aspects of the current approach to the "war" on drugs are incredibly flawed. Treatment, therapy, and acceptance are essential. I just think legalizing all these drugs isn't any better of an approach.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Treatment, therapy and acceptance?

Who pays the costs?

If you have a public healthcare system that will use tax dollars to deal with the problems then there is a case for strong restrictions and prohibitions.

 

[VertigoGal]

I know that came off as a bit idealistic, and I'm not sure court ordering offenders to AA, NA, etc meetings has proven to be effective. It's a good question and I don't know enough about this to give you a good answer.

There's got to be a compromise between demonizing addicts as we tend to do today, and selling meth at the doctor's office.

On the topic of cost, in the US treatment facilities often cost 7 or 8 grand a month, and alcoholics/addicts don't tend to have a lot of cash lying around by the time they hit that low. Public funding would certainly create a stronger case for prohibitions, but that has it's cons as well.

 

[A_Wanderer]

These people fuck themselves up with drugs then why should taxes be wasted either procecuting them or getting them in rehab?

Realistically you cannot legalise your hard drugs without costs to a social democracy, such a system can and should only exist in anarchy.

 

[VertigoGal]

anarchy being your preferred situation?

 

[A_Wanderer]

In many ways, even though it would have a few obvious flaws and drawbacks that restrict the level of civilization possible.

 

[indra]

Legalize and regulate.

I would legalise all of them.

I would regulate the production to the extent that there was a set level or levels of purity and strength (not so much for pot but for the manufactured or precessed drugs) so the users know what they are getting. Other than not allowing minors to buy or use (much like alcohol) I wouldn't regulate who could buy or how much a person could buy. I don't think that is any of the government's business.

 

[BonosSaint]

 

[hiphop]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Drug Use?

But when we start talking about meth and heroin (I don't mean pot here)...yes, we all have this notion of our "rights" and the like, but government does have an interest in things like the "common good." Many things are done in the interest of society regardless of whether they seem to violate individual rights. I don't know what kind of hellish society some of you are picturing where everyone is free and even encouraged to go to the doc for their weekly, daily dose of methamphetamines. This is on the verge of some dystopian sci-fi portrayal of the future.

meth and heroin and crack...I guess I'm really against personal rights, but I see no place for a legal market for those in society.

Im not for a legal market and encouraging people to get their dose of H. Whatever you say about pot or alcohol.. I think the most important thing would be to legalize hard drugs. Because these are the drugs that are mixed up with dangerous shit by the dealers. People who are ill have the right to get clean medicines.

if you prefer to let them die on the street, that´s your opinion, and Im not gonna change it. Honestly, there is no compromise here. Either you allow the poor bastards to get their junk or you don´t. If you don´t, they will get it illegally, and since prices to get your fix are high, they will commit crimes to ghet the money to buy their drugs. it´s a cycle and you´re not gonna break it - just if you allow the addicts to go to the doctor and get their fucking clean shot.

this is my interest in things like the "common good". not hellish at all, I dont know where you got that from, take a look at reality. hey, the crack dealer is waiting around the corner to sell the kids.

 

[A_Wanderer]

And the dealer doesn't ask for proof of age.

Human life is one of the cheapest commodities in the world.

 

[VertigoGal]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Drug Use?

Im not for a legal market and encouraging people to get their dose of H.

I think the most important thing would be to legalize hard drugs.

which do you mean?

and I don't want anyone to die on the streets, although I fail to see how legalizing meth is going to prevent that.

I'm not convinced prices would be too much lower than they are now (although I couldn't tell you how much junk or meth costs)...ever met a prescription drug addict?

 

[hiphop]

and so she woke up woke up from where she was lying still said i gotta do something about the way..