Giving drugs to drug addicts

[~Di]

The "We have to do something to help stop people getting addicted" argument doesn't work for me either. I was pondering this last night, and I recalled the fierce arguments we had in teh UK when suicide was made legal. Many moral guardians were claiming people would start killing themselevs in far greater numbers! IMO addiction to class As is a similar process to suicide.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If I'm understanding the above quote correctly, then I agree with it. Adult human beings have an inalienable right, in my opinion, to make decisions about themselves, their lives and their bodies whether others agree with those decisions or not... and yes, even if those who love them are emotionally distraught by those decisions. If one chooses to become an addict (and yes, allowing addiction to grasp one's body is definitely a choice, unless someone holds us down, forcibly and repeatedly injecting us with an addictive substance against our will), it may be a stupid choice in the eyes of most of us, but it is nonetheless that person's choice to make for themselves, and they will suffer all the stuff that goes with that choice.

 

It's not the government's job to babysit adults and legislate what they may and may not do to their own bodies. They have the right to legislate what we may and may not do to others while under the influence of our addiction.... drive, commit crimes, harass or harm others... but they have no right to control behaviors that affect only ourselves.

 

The same goes for laws against suicide. How dare someone who has never met me write a law that prevents me from making a decision to end my own life? This is, in my opinion, simply a form of arrogance and control, a king-complex if you will, that forces one's belief system upon everyone else through abuse of power.

 

That's one reason I'm against creating laws against drug use, etc. The other reason is that such laws create crime. Create major crime, and major crime syndicates, crime which affects people without their permission and taints society as a whole. This is documented and indisputable. Yet government, in its ultimate drive for power to enforce its will upon others, continues to create crime by pretending to fight it.

 

That's what I think. Those who disagree are wrong, of course!

Edited November 24, 2006 by ~Di

[kirottu]

Many moral guardians were claiming people would start killing themselevs in far greater numbers!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Really?

[metadigital]

The "We have to do something to help stop people getting addicted" argument doesn't work for me either. I was pondering this last night, and I recalled the fierce arguments we had in teh UK when suicide was made legal. Many moral guardians were claiming people would start killing themselevs in far greater numbers! IMO addiction to class As is a similar process to suicide.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If I'm understanding the above quote correctly, then I agree with it. Adult human beings have an inalienable right, in my opinion, to make decisions about themselves, their lives and their bodies whether others agree with those decisions or not... and yes, even if those who love them are emotionally distraught by those decisions. If one chooses to become an addict (and yes, allowing addiction to grasp one's body is definitely a choice, unless someone holds us down, forcibly and repeatedly injecting us with an addictive substance against our will), it may be a stupid choice in the eyes of most of us, but it is nonetheless that person's choice to make for themselves, and they will suffer all the stuff that goes with that choice.

 

It's not the government's job to babysit adults and legislate what they may and may not do to their own bodies. They have the right to legislate what we may and may not do to others while under the influence of our addiction.... drive, commit crimes, harass or harm others... but they have no right to control behaviors that affect only ourselves.

 

The same goes for laws against suicide. How dare someone who has never met me write a law that prevents me from making a decision to end my own life? This is, in my opinion, simply a form of arrogance and control, a king-complex if you will, that forces one's belief system upon everyone else through abuse of power.

 

That's one reason I'm against creating laws against drug use, etc. The other reason is that such laws create crime. Create major crime, and major crime syndicates, crime which affects people without their permission and taints society as a whole. This is documented and indisputable. Yet government, in its ultimate drive for power to enforce its will upon others, continues to create crime by pretending to fight it.

 

That's what I think. Those who disagree are wrong, of course!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

~Di, you are 100.01% correct ... assuming you are allowing for diminished responsibility for those that are deemed unable to make "adult" decisions: minors and mentally incapacitated by illness, accident or birth.

[Walsingham]

Many moral guardians were claiming people would start killing themselevs in far greater numbers!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Really?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Absolutely true. I've heard old interviews on the BBC.

 

My point is not so much that the state can't intervene to protect the dumb and impressionable. My point is that there are limits to what it can do, and if your intervention actively makes things worse, then quit doing it.

 

In the old days if you were found trying to commit suicide, if they saved you, you'd actually be liable to get arrested! How this was supposed to help with feeling suicidal is beyond me. Yet the exact same reasoning was used. If we legalise it, surely more people will do it! The fact was of course, that making it illegal stopped absolutely nobody. In, I may say, precisely the same way as I see in the UK today. No-one I know who doesn't take drugs does so because of the law.

[alanschu]

Look at the first post I made in this thread. I was quoting Gorgon. He was saying that addicts could lead productive lives. To me that is saying that being an addict is an okay thing and there is no reason to change. To me that is not okay.

 

I more had the impression that they could lead productive lives in the fact that they'd no longer have to be ostracized from society, and able to actually find a place into society. I don't think it necessarily means that being an addict is okay and that there is no reason to change. It just means that if you're an addict, we aren't going to shun you from society and make you resort to criminal acts to feed your addiction.

 

It can also provide avenues for helping addicts. Being cut off and vilified in society can help to make the problems worse.

[Dark_Raven]

Drugs should be legal. The American government know the war on drugs is a no win situation just like Prohibtion was in the 20-30's. Where there is a will, there is a way.

 

The government will be able to get taxes from drug sales, there will be set reasonable prices compared to the dealer around the corner. You will get what you pay for and not some fake dangerous look alike drug. Crime rate will go down because people will not be out stealing or killing another to get their latest fix because mr dealer charges at an outragous sum of money.

[Colrom]

Look at the first post I made in this thread. I was quoting Gorgon. He was saying that addicts could lead productive lives. To me that is saying that being an addict is an okay thing and there is no reason to change. To me that is not okay.

 

I more had the impression that they could lead productive lives in the fact that they'd no longer have to be ostracized from society, and able to actually find a place into society. I don't think it necessarily means that being an addict is okay and that there is no reason to change. It just means that if you're an addict, we aren't going to shun you from society and make you resort to criminal acts to feed your addiction.

 

It can also provide avenues for helping addicts. Being cut off and vilified in society can help to make the problems worse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think that's right. Good summary.

 

A person can be completely against drug use and see it as a problem behavior without wanting drug use to be a crime.

 

Personally I find it tragic that so many people are harmed by cheap messed up drugs.

 

Recently some dealers here have been substituting fentenyl for heroin - a big increase in potency and risk - and addicts were ODing and dying like crazy because of it until the word got out.

 

Some poor teen around here got a PCP laced joint and got so hyped up he ran through some families plate glass window and cut himself to shreads and bled to death in their living room

 

Thenthere is the famous story of the sloppy chemist who overcooked the heroin and produced an impurity called MPTP which is metabolized to produce MPP and other chemicals which damage the nervous system and produce Parkinsons like symptoms and in some famous cases, paralysis (see the movie Awakenings).

 

Legalization would greatly reduce the incidence of these types of horror stories - not to mention the stories about people who get smacked on the side of the head and then killed and robbed by some passer by who is a crazed addict.

Edited November 25, 2006 by Colrom

[~Di]

~Di, you are 100.01% correct ... assuming you are allowing for diminished responsibility for those that are deemed unable to make "adult" decisions: minors and mentally incapacitated by illness, accident or birth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, I used the word "adult" to encompass the legal defiition of the word, which is basically a person over the age of majority who is mentally capable of functioning at an adult level.

[Walsingham]

I'm not infavour of taxing it. Taxation requires monitoring and introduces a profit incentive for the govt. It should be completely free. This may sound weird, but I'm guessing you could give everyone heroin for less than a fraction of the cost ofall the parks and other amenities available. And that's assuming they took it. Plus, as I say, you'd make back money in less crime, and foreign problems.

[Gfted1]

I never understand the "If we give it to them, they wont have to steal it" BS argument. Well duh. If we open up free ATM machines nobody would have to steal cash to feed their families either. If we gave away Porche's, nobody would steal cars. If we gave away PS3's, nobody would get jacked in line. While many of you trumpet "I should be able to live as I want" I think you know inside thats crap. We live in societies where personal responsibilities are the foundation of orderly living, not "gimmie what I want for free or suffer the consequences".

Edited November 30, 2006 by Gfted1

[astr0creep]

I have to agree with Gfted.

 

Giving drugs away is just taking the easy way out. Users need to get out of it themselves or else the problem will never go away.

 

If you put everything under the rug it may look nice but it still stinks.

 

^_^

[Musopticon?]

Of course it wouldn't be final solution, but you've got to acknowledge that the drug problem just won't be going away with sayings like "Every addict has to want the change". I really believe that this drug give awy would be a good short term solution, at least lowering drug-based crimes and deaths from diseases and blood poisoning.

[metadigital]

I never understand the "If we give it to them, they wont have to steal it" BS argument. Well duh. If we open up free ATM machines nobody would have to steal cash to feed their families either. If we gave away Porche's, nobody would steal cars. If we gave away PS3's, nobody would get jacked in line. While many of you trumpet "I should be able to live as I want" I think you know inside thats crap. We live in societies where personal responsibilities are the foundation of orderly living, not "gimmie what I want for free or suffer the consequences".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're looking at the solution from the wrong angle. It's not for the benefit of the addicts (directly); it is for the benefit of society. The benefits for the individuals is incidental and serendipitous.

 

Basically, it costs society:

• crime
  (not sure on the figures, but something like: drug addicts make up less than 10% of the criminal population and commit 90% of crime);
  
• punishment and rehabilation
  the drug addicts are criminalized (gaol time)
  this costs society plenty, and as the rehabilation is poorly resourced and managed, recidivism is criminally (pun intended) high;
  
• organised crime
  because prohibition demonstrably doesn't work, and because it supports organised crime, the society has to deal with more powerful crime lords, which leads to
  
• terrorist support.
  

The fact that the addicts get free drugs is neither here nor there, except that it undercuts the potential profits made by organised criminals.

 

Decriminalization will also help the addits to find better treatment. They certainly won't feel as ostrocized as now, and won't feel trapped into a cycle.

 

Point of fact: Holland has the lowest addict population of Europe.

[Walsingham]

I never understand the "If we give it to them, they wont have to steal it" BS argument. Well duh. If we open up free ATM machines nobody would have to steal cash to feed their families either. If we gave away Porche's, nobody would steal cars. If we gave away PS3's, nobody would get jacked in line. While many of you trumpet "I should be able to live as I want" I think you know inside thats crap. We live in societies where personal responsibilities are the foundation of orderly living, not "gimmie what I want for free or suffer the consequences".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not saying you're daft, but come on. We have tried the War on Drugs. Nice plan. Didn't work. Carrying on with our heads in the sand is costing everyone needlessly.

[Gfted1]

^^But meanwhile, who do you think is going to foot the bill for these "free" services? Thats right, you and me, via our tax dollars. Thats part of the reason why all the Scandinavian countries have ridiculously high taxes, all these "free" social programs. If you want to spend your life in a drug induced haze, fine, but it better not be coming out of my pocket to entertain the idea it will force organized crime out. IMO, its just switching one cost (fighting crime) for another (manufacturing drugs to give away). It also basically green lights illicit drug use. If your govornment is giving it to you, it cant be criminal to use. So, party hearty on the taxpayers dime with absolutely no reprecussions!

 

Also, arent methadone clinics already set up in every major city? They give it away and the organized crime problems are still in full force. Why so?

 

(not sure on the figures, but something like: drug addicts make up less than 10% of the criminal population and commit 90% of crime)

 

Ive seen this in a slightly different layout, that 10% of the total population commits 90% of all crime.

Edited November 30, 2006 by Gfted1

[Gfted1]

I never understand the "If we give it to them, they wont have to steal it" BS argument. Well duh. If we open up free ATM machines nobody would have to steal cash to feed their families either. If we gave away Porche's, nobody would steal cars. If we gave away PS3's, nobody would get jacked in line. While many of you trumpet "I should be able to live as I want" I think you know inside thats crap. We live in societies where personal responsibilities are the foundation of orderly living, not "gimmie what I want for free or suffer the consequences".

 

I'm not saying you're daft, but come on. We have tried the War on Drugs. Nice plan. Didn't work. Carrying on with our heads in the sand is costing everyone needlessly.

 

Im not saying you're daft, but come on. Since one thing didnt work we might as well throw up our hands in failure and open the floodgates.

[Gfted1]

And while were on the subject, lets look at this "failure" on the war on drugs. As these DEA statistics show 9,264,699.6 kgs of illegal drugs were captured in the U.S. in 2005 alone. Whats the definition of failure to everyone, less then 100% removal of all drugs? I guess in that case, all efforts at doing anything are a failure, including this pipe dream to remove organized crime.

Edited November 30, 2006 by Gfted1

[Gorgon]

What does it matter what tonnage was intercepted if it didn't impact the market enough to change people's habbits.

[Gfted1]

What does it matter what tonnage was intercepted if it didn't impact the market enough to change people's habbits.

 

Er, what?

 

1) How do you know it didnt effect peoples habits? Lets say hypothetically I couldnt find a bag of weed to buy because the shipment intended for Chicago was intercepted and the dealer didnt have any. I guess I wouldnt be smoking any until that status changed.

 

2) I wouldnt call having 9.25 Mkgs less drugs on the street a "failure". Not to mention whatever peeps were also rounded up in those cases.

 

Why does it have to be all or nothing to be a success? Since there are still some drugs available it must be a total failure and we can give up and legalize everything? Thats akin to saying "Well, that guy got killed in the car accident while he was wearing his seatbelt. Might as well throw out that mandatory seatbelt law because its a failure."

[metadigital]

What does it matter what tonnage was intercepted if it didn't impact the market enough to change people's habbits.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Er, what?

 

1) How do you know it didnt effect peoples habits? Lets say hypothetically I couldnt find a bag of weed to buy because the shipment intended for Chicago was intercepted and the dealer didnt have any. I guess I wouldnt be smoking any until that status changed.

 

2) I wouldnt call having 9.25 Mkgs less drugs on the street a "failure". Not to mention whatever peeps were also rounded up in those cases.

 

Why does it have to be all or nothing to be a success? Since there are still some drugs available it must be a total failure and we can give up and legalize everything? Thats akin to saying "Well, that guy got killed in the car accident while he was wearing his seatbelt. Might as well throw out that mandatory seatbelt law because its a failure."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because I don't know one person who has trouble finding drugs if they want them. That's failure. And it is a foregone conclusion, just like prohibition didn't stop the speakeasies.

 

And how much of the tax dollars of society do you want to spend stopping drugs? How much of that could be spent on youth education, etc?

[Pop]

Because I don't know one person who has trouble finding drugs if they want them. That's failure. And it is a foregone conclusion, just like prohibition didn't stop the speakeasies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Terrible argument. There's a mandate out against murder, but a determined person will still commit it. By your logic, that imprisonment or capital punishment are not effective deterrents against murder (people still kill each other with full knowledge of the consequences of their actions) means that those punishments should be suspended until we find some punishment that precludes murder all the time everywhere. But that's unreasonable, so we implement those punishments because we can be confident that it will deter some.

Edited November 30, 2006 by Pop

[metadigital]

Except that murder is a act against someone else in the society, and therefore must be fought against. Whereas drug taking only affects the individual, except currently, where the illegality of the process causes more, innocent other members of society to be affected.

[Pop]

Except that murder is a act against someone else in the society, and therefore must be fought against. Whereas drug taking only affects the individual, except currently, where the illegality of the process causes more, innocent other members of society to be affected.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your argument was about the legitimacy of drug laws in reference to their efficacy. That drug laws were wrong wasn't the issue, it was that they were ineffective. That drug laws harm the innocent is irrelevant to the argument that they fail as a deterrent, and that the laws fail as a deterrent is insufficient argument to conclude that those laws should not be in place, as evidenced by the murder analogy.

Edited November 30, 2006 by Pop

[Colrom]

I didn't know we were talking about giving drugs out for free. That would be a social health care program. Gosh.

 

I thought we were talking about legalizing drug use and making it available by prescription for registered addicts.

 

If it is legalized it is just like other chemical use which is legal now.

 

Comparisons and analogies to murder or violent crime or theft are bogus. :crazy:

[tarna]

Comparisons and analogies to murder or violent crime or theft are bogus.  :crazy:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I tend to agree. There are several people I would kill tomorrow ( no joke ) if I thought the law would see it my way ( I have a rather lengthy 'better dead' list ). If however, the 'State' were to pass out weed like candy, you would see my happy ass in line to pick up a quarter oz each week. I haven't smoked weed for many, many years. It wasn't out of any overblown sense of morality that I stopped but rather that I hated dealing with some stupid stoned son-of-a-bitch to get my bag. Liquor stores are open 6 days a week and are on every street corner ( well...almost ) and I don't have to wonder if my dealer sold the bag he promised me for a piece of ass at a party.

 

Now if you'd like to just 'give it to me' with no consequenses, I'll be sure to tip my hat in thanks and go back to smoking.

 

Not real sure society as a whole would improve though.