Good drugs, bad drugs, legal drugs, illegal drugs

As my wife, the political junkie, has reminded me several times tonight.Finally found a way to welcome you back, this place is much better with your participation.

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This rings true and from John S Mill, Why are we generally so willing to support the massive suppression of individual rights in favour of undefined and unsupported claims of benefit to society? Why do we so readily accept the disproportion between the cost to the individual and the benefit to society?How can it possibly be justified that we incarcerate someone for ingesting, injecting or inhaling a substance? Any substance. How narrow is this concept of freedom?In my opinion, freedom is lost to fear. There is a strong herd sense of fear and it is easily flamed. We shouldn’t be so afraid of our own nature.Prohibition is almost never the appropriate solution. Land mines and cluster bombs among the obvious exceptions. Information and education are the answer. Let people do as they will. Hold them accountable for their behaviour but let them do it. The prohibition of drugs has caused far more harm than it has prevented. The vast majority of the violence associated with illegal drug use is caused by prohibition. 30,000 dead in Mexico.I am not suggesting that drugs are not dangerous but that is not the point. The point is that free citizens should be free and we have a great deal more to fear from the contraction of freedom than we do from it’s expansion. All drug use by legal adults should be decriminalized today. The world would be a better place.

And your point is proven by those clinics that have the possession of drugs decriminalized. Those clinics offer fresh needles, a bright light mirror, nurse and doctors staff if anything goes wrong all the junkies have to do is bring their own "stuff". Their aim is to limit the loss of life to drugs, and to try to convince people to stop they have a lot of success in both cases.And if the buying and selling of drugs where decriminalised there would be no need for gangs no need to bring tones of firepower to a deal because the deal would be protected by law and contract if one of the parties involved would try to cheat the other there would be no need for a bloodbath because they could sue and get their money or drugs back.

I couldn't agree more frako.I had a cousin who literally froze to death after being forced out into the cold. Turned away from a rehab centre because she was stoned. She never harmed a soul. The investigating officer remarked, "Such a tragedy. She could have always come to jail if she needed to stay warm."

My philosophy, when it comes to drugs, is non-intervention. My job requires me to fight the "War on Drugs," which means that I am legally obligated to chase down and detain drug runners.I recently caught 4 Bahamian drug runners off the coast of Cuba about 3 weeks ago. We recovered 45 bales of marijuana. And as I'm performing my job, in the back of my mind, it's not lost on me that I disagree with the War on Drugs. What do I care if they're trying to make some money? Who am I to get in the way of their enterprising?But there is another way of handling things that I also disagree with, and those are the people who facilitate addicts. They facilitate them by making sure they can shoot up (or by whatever delivery method) safely and in their care. By doing this, you only ensure that people will die at their own hand. These people are complicit in the deaths of the very people they try to help because they're enablers.So you have one side who callously views drug addicts as "criminals" and the other side who enables them by viewing them as "victims." Both have lost perspective on the matter.

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

Can you name all the people throughout history who have "died by their own hand" due to marijuana? (hint: it's at least one less than water).So let's talk about perspective. If heroin users received their fix from pure pharmaceutical sources in appropriate doses, would anyone die from heroin? cocaine? LSD? psylocybin? peyote?Yes there are a few drugs that cause long term damage when administered by amateurs -- cocaine, methamphetamine, PCP, inhalants, tobacco, and alcohol. (please notice the last two are perfectly legal)There are some drugs that cause no harm whatsoever if uncontaminated and properly managed, like heroin or any opiate derivative. Technically this can even be extended to any pharmaceutical opiate such as hydrocodone or oxycontin (Rush Limbaugh's favorite).There are also some illegal drugs that cause minimal or even nonexistent harm such as the aforementioned marijuana, the psychedelics (if not used by pre-psychotics), exstacy (keep hydrated), and the newest bugaboo, Salvia Divinorum (thanks a lot Miley Cyrus).This war on drugs, along with Afghanistan and Iraq, is and will drain the treasury to the point the USA will fall.Is it worth it?Have any children?

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

You seem to be claimimg that all (or most) addicts that join a legal drug scheme will die from those administered drugs.
Could you please cite your reference data?

I wasn't referring to marijuana. I don't even consider Marijuana a narcotic. The problem with opiates is that it is highly addictive, and just like any other drug (legal or otherwise), the body grows a tolerance to it, which therefore necessitates the increased dosage. The liver can only take so much abuse.Regardless, my only point is that people should be able to do to themselves whatever they want without intervention from the government -- that includes waging a war against them or helping them get high at the tax payer's expense. Strongly agreed. Two of them, who are now awake and want their Christmas. And with that, I bid you a good day.

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

Not at all, and how you came to that conclusion is anyone's guess. I wouldn't know how to quantify the number of people who die because of drugs versus those who never die. I can only offer some anecdote from personal experience.Let me be a little more clear on my stance from a government perspective -- Non-intervention.Neither stopping people from doing drugs nor enabling them at the tax payer's expense.

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

The irony is that without folks doing what you are doing there would be no enterprise. In case you haven't noticed we are all going to die no matter what. This is like saying that we are enabling all those people who die in car accidents by allowing them to have cars. By this logic cars should not have seat belts or airbags because they enable people to survive the consequences of their decisions.What I see is that we are as afraid of freedom as we are of democracy.

Are coal mine operators "enablers" for black lung disease?Doesn't this all come down to insane puritanicalism?In this society, it is perfectly alright, and often admired, to make money in a way that is likely to result in death (as with coal mine operation). But it isn't alright to make money in a way that people get some enjoyment (as in selling pot). We even look down on amusement park operators, in comparison to mine operators.Personally, I have never used pot, and I think it a bad idea. But I don't see any value in our current laws against it. We have the political right complaining about the "nanny state", but the drug laws that they insist on are nanny state laws. What would you consider a good perspective?Much as King Canute was unable to hold back the tide, our legislation won't prevent what is driven by human psychology.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Yeah, but they don't listen to me. It's way above my pay grade. So since we're all going to die anyway, randomly shoot someone in the head. When the judge asks you why. just tell him that the person you shot was going to die anyway. No, it's nothing remotely like that straw man. "In a negative sense, enabling is also used in the context of problematic behavior, to signify dysfunctional approaches that are intended to help but in fact may perpetuate a problem. A common theme of enabling in this latter sense is that third parties take responsibility, blame, or make accommodations for a person's harmful conduct (often with the best of intentions, or from fear or insecurity which inhibits action). The practical effect is that the person themselves does not have to do so, and is shielded from awareness of the harm it may do, and the need or pressure to change. It is a major environmental cause of addiction.

​

A common example of enabling can be observed in the relationship between the alcoholic/addict and a codependent spouse. The spouse believes incorrectly that he or she is helping the alcoholic by calling into work for them, making excuses that prevent others from holding them accountable, and generally cleaning up the mess that occurs in the wake of their impaired judgment. In reality what the spouse is doing is hurting, not helping. Enabling prevents psychological growth in the person being enabled and can contribute to negative symptoms in the enabler.

​

Generally, individuals who enable others have weak boundaries, low self-esteem, and have difficulty being assertive when they communicate with others." - SourceThere isn't a drug counselor on the planet who would suggest enabling as an acceptable method of dealing with addiction.But all this has gotten beyond the initial point.

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

I would hope people would read what you posted, rather than just guessing - I know I did.
It was because you said:

quote:

---

By doing this, you only ensure that people will die at their own hand.

---

(I emphasised the key bit.) That is not what you were talking about.
You were talking about how 'enablers' actions ensure the death of addicts.
You were not comparing the death rate of drug users to non-drug users. Maybe you should have caged your sentences in less definite terms if you are only going by personal experience.
But even then, to claim that the doctors, etc. that work at drug clinics are responsible for the deaths of most of their patients is not likely to be blindly accepted. And you are entitled to this opinion.
I am simply pointing out the the basis for your opinion regarding "tax payers enabling addicts" is unfounded and offensive.

If they have foreknowledge of the danger and don't do anything about it, yes, they are. They're certainly complicit in the effects it has. Looking at from a legal perspective, drug laws tend to be malum prohibitum (crimes that are considered "bad" only because they're prohibited) whereas crimes like murder are considered malum in se (inherently evil).In other words, I subscribe to the philosophy "No victim, no crime." An astute observation, and one that shouldn't go unnoticed. The Right is comprised of hypocrites and only do things it's used to. They grew up thinking that drugs are bad, and they've seen some of the destruction caused by drugs. So in their savior complex, they feel justified in putting an end to drugs without realizing that 75% of the drugs they demonize are better for you than alcohol, as diseases caused by alcohol consumption still claim more lives than any other drug. One that views the problem realistically. Drug users are neither criminals because they use drugs or in need of government assistance because they're addicts.

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

I was speaking about hard drugs in that instance, and only in the sense that if we mollycoddle people, you only further perpetuate the problem.If drug addicts know that the gub'ment is going to provide them with fresh needles, food, a warm place to stay, etc, what incentive is there to stop? When the junky never hits rock bottom, what motivation is there to get clean? Yes, enablers are complicit in the deaths of those that do overdose. Hell, just watch 1 show of "Intervention" on A&E to see how they handle it. Providing them with the drugs and the delivery method isn't complicit? It's offensive to think that you and I might pay for people to get high. That's offensive. If you want to get as high as a goddamn kite, knock yourself out. But don't do it on my dime.But since we're on the subject, how best do you think to handle drugs and drug users?

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine