What do you think about preventing drug overdoses by legalizing drugs?

[Padawanbater2]

All the more reason to not make that wrong turn to substance over person.

Drugs are illegal as it is yet they're extremely prevalent (much more than they were before Nixon declared a war on drugs, and of much higher quality). You can make anything illegal, if there is a demand for it, people will find it. I heed you to consider this. The only thing I am proposing is instead of making them criminals who face judicial punishment, turn them into patients in need of help.

Why do the civil have to watch over their shoulders looking for the "just in case " ? Their decisions affect the civil through crimes committed to support addiction, time spent caring for them is a personal sacrifice I can understand and respect but not mandate. There are 300 million people in this country, it is not a compound with a supreme leader. Their needs go right out the window the minute they infringe on our freedoms.

It's unfortunate you believe that because they would not need to commit crimes if our society didn't defame their reputation and prevent them from gainful employment. Make an honest person with a problem a felon, what else would you expect?

You are hashing a solution from a problem that doesn't need to be there. Your solution is rendered moot because what I am telling you is that if scheduled substances were not illegal, these problems you cite for citizens wouldn't exist because they would be able to gain employment and quell their habit on their own without having to resort to violence. So your choices are, a) put non violent drug users in prison, successfully destroying their potential future, or b) put them in treatment, get them off the substance and turn them into productive members of society. Now who in their right mind would choose a over b?

BTW, It is not my solution and I would never take on this problem alone. It can all be avoided but it is not. That does not make it everyone`s responsibility, it makes it their problem.

How can it all be avoided? I have a feeling you are speaking from a position of non addiction, never having faced it, is that the case? Addiction to some people is just like quelling hunger. It's next to impossible not to use, this is why it's so difficult to quit. You could make using illegal drugs capital punishment and you would still have a nation full of drug addicts. That should tell you something.. The legality of something does nothing to prevent its use in society, it only serves to turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.

 

[OddBall1st]

To your first paragraph,....At who`s expense, the food on my table or taxation ? Non the less, I prefer to treat the treatable. What do you do with repeated offenders or non treatable ? I am not against treatment but it`s second to my family.

To your second paragraph, Kurt Cobain had life by the balls and employment and more money than he could spend,...the result of his addiction was not affiliated with any of that. He stopped the pain he could no longer tolerate. The boy who cried wolf was helped the first time, and the second, but was eaten on the third. Think about those two. Then point to the honest junkie.

To your third paragraph, Until you take it, it is avoided. No ? Knowing what lies ahead and seeing no future in it should curve addiction, but it don`t. I don`t want that man on my workforce. There`s to much at stake to trust a proven failure. You have to look at it they way people that have never been there nor want to be, view it as well. You can`t just tell me how they compare or see it and ignore the other half.

 

[Padawanbater2]

To your first paragraph,....At who`s expense, the food on my table or taxation ? Non the less, I prefer to treat the treatable. What do you do with repeated offenders or non treatable ? I am not against treatment but it`s second to my family.

Yes at the taxpayers expense. Look at the numbers yourself, it is far more expensive and taxing to take someone to jail for a nonviolent offense, like using/manufacturing/transporting illegal drugs than it is to treat them for addiction.

Repeated offenders get better treatment, more specialized treatment and vastly improved upon treatment than they received the first time, all at the taxpayers expense. Is it not the taxpayers responsibility to ensure a free and safe society to work and live in?

I don't consider anyone "untreatable".

To your second paragraph, Kurt Cobain had life by the balls and employment and more money than he could spend,...the result of his addiction was not affiliated with any of that. He stopped the pain he could no longer tolerate. The boy who cried wolf was helped the first time, and the second, but was eaten on the third. Think about those two. Then point to the honest junkie.

One example of a person who simply couldn't defeat his own demons does not impress or sway me towards your side of the argument. You look at one but dismiss the millions who have recovered from drug addiction.

To your third paragraph, Until you take it, it is avoided. No ? Knowing what lies ahead and seeing no future in it should curve addiction, but it don`t. I don`t want that man on my workforce. There`s to much at stake to trust a proven failure. You have to look at it they way people that have never been there nor want to be, view it as well. You can`t just tell me how they compare or see it and ignore the other half.

People who have never been there are incapable of fully understanding the situation. They are essentially being given half the story, which is why, I feel, they accept drug prohibition, even though multiple sources and history completely defeats that "solution". Prohibition creates black markets, this is a fact. Something illegal with high demand will become available whether the law agrees with it or not. This is something you simply must accept.

Like I said, you can make it as illegal as humanly possible, it still won't prevent people from getting it, using it, making it or transporting it. So in the end, what does criminalizing something actually solve?


Keep in mind, "legalizing" something is far different than "condoning" it.

 

[KLITE]

I come from a country where the possession of all substances for personal consumption is not considered a crime. Yo0u can literally have on you up to an ounce of weed, 5 grams of hash as well as 1 individual dose of any heavy drugs.
Here are the facts: Its almost impossible to buy weed, there isnt hgardly any, and even getting moroccan hash can prove a bit hard. Hard drugs are even harder to get, Im pretty sure itd be very hard for me to get a gram of coke for instance. I bet you can only buy harder drugs in big cities and even then youre gonna have to look for it.
Another thing i find the coolest is that drug addicts are treated as ill people not put into jail. You go to this center where you get professional help to fight your addiction. I was caught once smoking a joint behind school and me and my mum had to go to a psychologist where the guy was very openly telling me about the dangers of cannabis and i remember leaving with the feeling that its something i shouldnt do but if i chose to do it i should do it in moderation, and i was no older than 17 for sure. Theydo that if youre old too and have been caught like 3 times smoking weed, you go chat with psychologist who advises you on your drug use or abuse.
Oh ye and all those modern drugs like crystal, oxys and whatever is the hype in the US i doubt they even exist over there...
Im honestly very for state hard drugs dispensary, where anyone above 21 can score a personal dose of their hard drug and if youre new to the centre youd have an introduction session where people tell you what the drug does to you etc. also better to keep track of addicts and their lives and health.
Matter of fact is i do not know of any stories where someones life was ruinned due to drug use or small time dealing. Any drugs are generaly very very frowned upon, like extremely.

Dont know why but find this song very fitting for the subject:
[video=youtube;iGaF4tKUl0o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGaF4tKUl0o[/video]

 

[headwrappedturtle]

I support nature, evolution and everyone's right to remove themselves from the gene pool. We need to stop 'saving' 'special snowflakes' from evolution. God knows our parents didn't with us. If they lost a few of us they considered that the cost of building a better kid.

are you implying people with downs and such should be terminated? possibly in some sort of deprevation chamber?

 

[charface]

I think you keep unemployment rates
low by terminating peoples
unemployment benefits.
vote for me

 

[OddBall1st]

Yes at the taxpayers expense. Look at the numbers yourself, it is far more expensive and taxing to take someone to jail for a nonviolent offense, like using/manufacturing/transporting illegal drugs than it is to treat them for addiction.

Repeated offenders get better treatment, more specialized treatment and vastly improved upon treatment than they received the first time, all at the taxpayers expense. Is it not the taxpayers responsibility to ensure a free and safe society to work and live in?

I don't consider anyone "untreatable".



One example of a person who simply couldn't defeat his own demons does not impress or sway me towards your side of the argument. You look at one but dismiss the millions who have recovered from drug addiction.



People who have never been there are incapable of fully understanding the situation. They are essentially being given half the story, which is why, I feel, they accept drug prohibition, even though multiple sources and history completely defeats that "solution". Prohibition creates black markets, this is a fact. Something illegal with high demand will become available whether the law agrees with it or not. This is something you simply must accept.

Like I said, you can make it as illegal as humanly possible, it still won't prevent people from getting it, using it, making it or transporting it. So in the end, what does criminalizing something actually solve?


Keep in mind, "legalizing" something is far different than "condoning" it.

It`s also expensive to jail people for non violent crimes such as check fraud, tax evasion, employee scams, and so on.

That one example is a point made and if I give more with the same point, I only waste space and would be here all week.

Keep in mind that a government that acts in favor of the vast majority to prohibit something only a select few use, is fair. A government that legalizes something to favor a select few against the vast majority is not fair and gives you more problems that the one being addressed.

Sometimes but not most cases, a black market can help the people more than a greedy too big government. They certainly have a better justice system in play. Fair, no, effective, yes.

You underestimate peoples ability to understand. I don`t need to be lit on fire to know it hurts, isn`t a good thing and nothing good comes from it fro me. Just say`n.

 

[cricket101]

Legalization is fine, but using public tax money to make drugs free to drug users? Wtf?

So let's pretend that junkies are stable enough to actually hold a steady job for one year. At the end of that year they (and everyone else) are taxed to pay for OTHER people's heroin, cocaine, and other drug needs(addictions).
I'm pretty sure even a drug addict would get pissed that some of his paycheck is taken from him, to pay for some other guys stash. And how the heck would any of this prevent overdose? Giving a heroin addict free fixes will NOT prevent him from chasing the high with larger and larger doses until one day his body can't handle the dose and he dies.

 

[SunnyJim]

Legalization is fine, but using public tax money to make drugs free to drug users? Wtf?

So let's pretend that junkies are stable enough to actually hold a steady job for one year. At the end of that year they (and everyone else) are taxed to pay for OTHER people's heroin, cocaine, and other drug needs(addictions).
I'm pretty sure even a drug addict would get pissed that some of his paycheck is taken from him, to pay for some other guys stash. And how the heck would any of this prevent overdose? Giving a heroin addict free fixes will NOT prevent him from chasing the high with larger and larger doses until one day his body can't handle the dose and he dies.

Cool story.

Do you have any of your own ideas/solutions you want to share, or are you simply here to piss on other people's?

 

[cannabineer]

First, There are different phases of narcotic addiction. At the first level, most people can get off the drug by themselves. The second level is when help by professionals assist in defeating the addiction. But the possibility of jumping off the wagon is there and happens throughout multiple treatments. The third level is when the drug take control of you, it destroys any hope of cure and death follows without it.

This is very incorrect. It is not so. Saying it is so, and basing the rest of your thesis is a mistake.

I have had direct expereince with what you term severe addiction to opioid narcotics. I have the standing to say: It is not as you describe.

So they continue to do them to stay alive. This is where there humanity is lost forever. They are just a breeding ground for the drug to thrive. Useless and hopeless and become a danger to civilization around them for they care not about anything but their next fix. Will do anything for that fix as well. I stand my ground with the third level. The other two can be tolerated, and the second level only to a point. I have witnessed all three and the final results.

My anectdote can whup your anecdote's ass.

The criminality you speak of whether expensive or cheap, legal or illegal is a direct result of the drugs addiction made by a choice said person made.

This is "begging the question" predicated upon your wrong concept of drug addiction. Imo.

You cannot blame the drug. If the drug is readily available cheap and common, you can blame society and or the person addicted because it is one the same.

No. The person and society are distinct. "Society" is an abstraction, a sort of shorthand. it is not the sentient monolith the term suggests.

I disagree that the ills will disappear if the drug is legal or cheap or reduced dosage. it will prolong the trip through the levels to which out of control exists. The prohibition of alcohol failed because the majority of citizens did not oppose it but wanted it. This is how you decide whether or not to prohibit. You don`t see the majority of citizens wanting to legalize all drugs for rec. use or even controlled use. Your Country will fail as a whole when you damage trust and set in place laws to satisfy a select few against the will of the majority.

You can't legislate biology.

Please leave Religion out, for Jesus Christ himself drank wine, when talking about alcohol. It`s not a drug when abused, it`s more like a disease. Jesus did not abuse it. I myself do not drink.

I posit that religion is central. Many in this land either expressly or less awarely religious in the formulation or acquisition of their lifelong moral compass. It's the second category, the ones who make these moral calls without owning the process by which they did so, who can have real effects on policy. At that point it becomes my duty, as one aware of that way of thinking and of my reasons for deeming it wrong, to speak in opposition.

Many USA protestants view drinking as a sin.
How do you think the Volstead Act gained such traction?
Read some of the temperance literature of the time.
The champions were soldiers doing God's work in God's land.

And I posit that much of the opposition to drugs, typified by your thought process and conclusions you enumerate here, is based on that imposed moral argument, regardless of the medical, biological and psychological science that is being developed on the relevant issues.

Legal script drug addiction is a choice made by the addict just as a addiction to a Class 1 is. Crime exists is all phases of civilization including the medical profession. Drug companies such as Pfizer have cornered the market as to what drugs become available and wich do not see production and cost plus profit have much to do about that.

I don`t wanna hear the prison BS because we can put drunk drivers under stiff penalties in there so much faster and often.

I truly believe you are wrong about your comparison of pot, alcohol with manufactured mind and body controlling drugs you cannot defeat once addicted to them. Both pot and alcohol are defeated simply by not doing them anymore. Cocaine is just as natural as pot, and it is very addictive. it is no better or worse than pot, alcohol, PCP, or gasoline as an inhalant drug. There si NO moral hierarchy here. In my previous post i laid that out. Any moral hierarchy is not fact, and its principal utility lies in dividing drug users for their eventual conqhest and obliteration as legitimate voices.

We hang together but think separately. You don`t have to support or not support the "our is the better drug" because it`s about risk and control, not winning.

Your last paragraph is where you fail. You fail to include citizens right to govern by majority. You mention not how you consider what the non partisipants feel or wish to have as government and law. You will never Skipper my ship because you put the ship before the crew. You absolutely cannot ignore the vast majority in favor of the select few and your ship is just Iron without it`s crew.


It will suck if this took too long for my limited typing skills and I get logged off.

Again, no. The majority can be wrong. You can't legislate biology. And it is precisely when the majority is wrong that people like me, who have some hard-won professional knowledge, incur the duty to speak, to present an alternative and rational point to the various ills and wrongs being armored with the twin shells of common knowledge and approved ideology.

I speak plainly against the idea that drugs are evil, and that drug users are evil. I would ask you to apply the single standard you accord to alcohol. Drug addiction is like alcohol addiction in that it is a public health issue, a vulnerability of the organism. It is also not nearly as hopeless or moraly perilous as you suggest. It isn't an irreversible soul trap. With any drug, all that is needed is the sustained act of will: walk away; stay away. People can be marvelously strong if they so choose. the evidence of that is in the growing number of folks who overcome eating disorders. These are quite similar in their medical features to drug addictions or maladaptive behavior loops (like "addiction" to gambling), with one big difference.
Yuou can walk away from drugs or gambling.
You cannot walk away from eating.
The ones who succeed at controlling an eating disorder stand as a refutation of the addiction model you have presented.

 

[cricket101]

Cool story.

Do you have any of your own ideas/solutions you want to share, or are you simply here to piss on other people's?

I think offering free therapy and addiction TREATMENT makes better sense than free drugs which only fuel the addiction.

 

[SunnyJim]

I think offering free therapy and addiction TREATMENT makes better sense than free drugs which only fuel the addiction.

I agree - treatment of addiction and better education from an early age is the way forward.

That said, just because something is free, it doesn't necessarily mean that product will be abused by the masses. If something is being abused, price rarely comes into play. The dependant will find a way of sourcing that product. The prevention to addiction, in my view, is early substance abuse education.

 

[OddBall1st]

This is very incorrect. It is not so. Saying it is so, and basing the rest of your thesis is a mistake.

I have had direct expereince with what you term severe addiction to opioid narcotics. I have the standing to say: It is not as you describe. My anectdote can whup your anecdote's ass. This is "begging the question" predicated upon your wrong concept of drug addiction. Imo. No. The person and society are distinct. "Society" is an abstraction, a sort of shorthand. it is not the sentient monolith the term suggests. You can't legislate biology. I posit that religion is central. Many in this land either expressly or less awarely religious in the formulation or acquisition of their lifelong moral compass. It's the second category, the ones who make these moral calls without owning the process by which they did so, who can have real effects on policy. At that point it becomes my duty, as one aware of that way of thinking and of my reasons for deeming it wrong, to speak in opposition.

Many USA protestants view drinking as a sin.
How do you think the Volstead Act gained such traction?
Read some of the temperance literature of the time.
The champions were soldiers doing God's work in God's land.

And I posit that much of the opposition to drugs, typified by your thought process and conclusions you enumerate here, is based on that imposed moral argument, regardless of the medical, biological and psychological science that is being developed on the relevant issues.

Again, no. The majority can be wrong. You can't legislate biology. And it is precisely when the majority is wrong that people like me, who have some hard-won professional knowledge, incur the duty to speak, to present an alternative and rational point to the various ills and wrongs being armored with the twin shells of common knowledge and approved ideology.

I speak plainly against the idea that drugs are evil, and that drug users are evil. I would ask you to apply the single standard you accord to alcohol. Drug addiction is like alcohol addiction in that it is a public health issue, a vulnerability of the organism. It is also not nearly as hopeless or moraly perilous as you suggest. It isn't an irreversible soul trap. With any drug, all that is needed is the sustained act of will: walk away; stay away. People can be marvelously strong if they so choose. the evidence of that is in the growing number of folks who overcome eating disorders. These are quite similar in their medical features to drug addictions or maladaptive behavior loops (like "addiction" to gambling), with one big difference.
Yuou can walk away from drugs or gambling.
You cannot walk away from eating.
The ones who succeed at controlling an eating disorder stand as a refutation of the addiction model you have presented.

No it is not wrong. I`ve seen people start and walk away HEALTHY. Never to do it again. I`ve seen and met people who needed assistance because the drug is IN CONTROL OF THEM. I`ve watch a neighbor go through withdrawals only to save himself by doing it again. This neighbor is now dead. Don`t compare what I`ve seen to what you have on paper or have been tested on. The way I look at it is not wrong. You can`t possibly know how many times you`ve been lied to by junkies.

You can`t legislate biology but you sure can legislate they way we want to live. If the people say no free drugs, than no free drugs. The addict is on their own. Unless they load up and shoot to win. That`s how it`s dione, laws are only as good as your ability to enforce them.

I have much to say about people who claim to be doing god`s work, but that`s not this topic.

The people don`t give a rats ass about the f`n biology of it, they wan to rid it from their land, biology correct or incorrect the junkie is still a junkie. They make promises they can`t keep and fall of this expensive wagon again and again, to the point that their possibilities are no longer the matter. Non will put the junkie`s health over their own. Non will put the junkies care over their own.

The majority can be wrong about the biology but not the fact they want to rid themselves of these junkies. That`s how majority works. Go beat your chest that in time and expense you can cure them, right up to the point where you prevented it appears. We don`t want to cure them at our expense, we wish to prevent them. Money well spent.

Stop looking for rewards because you can cure, Tell me all about awareness and prevention...I`ll listen to that.

 

[OddBall1st]

Curing is after the fact, and that`s my point.

 

[OddBall1st]

Who the F` wants to allow it and then spend enormous amounts curing it ?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Who the F` wants to allow it and then spend enormous amounts curing it ?

Yeah, you're right, we should just continue to spend even more on prohibition and incarceration, just look what a fantastic job it's been doing so far.

Are you really that inept about this? Take one look around..

Prohibition obviously works great, not only for the drug user, but for society at large. /s

How can you look at these numbers and not realize you are simply wrong about this issue?

 

[OddBall1st]

What does the chart look like when Zero was spent on drug control ? A chart that shows two of three variables means nothing. That`s how I can look at it and see a one sided coin.

 

[OddBall1st]

It appears the green starts out below the blue

 

[OddBall1st]

In 1922 and 2008 the population differences are so much greater.

 

[Padawanbater2]

What does the chart look like when Zero was spent on drug control ? A chart that shows two of three variables means nothing. That`s how I can look at it and see a one sided coin.

It appears the green starts out below the blue

In 1922 and 2008 the population differences are so much greater.

The chart shows that no matter how many restrictions you place on illegal drugs, addiction rates remain constant

Do you see that huge jump starting out in 1980? Show me a huge population jump correlating to that same time period, otherwise it is clear to anyone looking at it with an honest frame of mind, the spike in the prison population is directly attributed to the war on drugs, that point cannot be rationally argued