Good drugs, bad drugs, legal drugs, illegal drugs

Because I want the government completely out of it.

---

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

Cheap for the consumer, but think what it would take for the government to facilitate the need of the masses. First there has to be a lab which manufactures all sorts of narcotics. You have to pay these scientists to make it.Then you have the daunting task of procuring the raw materials, like coca or opium, which are overseas.Those are just some of the expensive challenges. There is no shortage of literature on the web concerning enabling behaviorIt's a philosophical point I was making. You said that addiction is a disease and the people can't help it. So we should just buy it for them since it's something beyond their control. So I responded by asking whether or not nicotine and alcohol users should expect the same treatment, being that they too are addicts.You haven't addressed that point. Precisely my point with enabling. In order to make a mistake, they have to go through the process of checking out. Remember, they are receiving their drug of choice, which is slowly being tapered away. Maybe not daily, but the point I'm making is that the goal is to wean them off slowly. In between are sessions where they are educated about the dangers have therapy sessions where they can express themselves. That won't stop black market drugs. The black market will respond with a drug with higher potency, OR (like they did with Crack Ecstasy or Meth), they'll simply create a new drug. It isn't a moral demand, it's a simple matter of what is going to save their lives.

---

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

That's a loaded question, since you automatically preface it with "safe" drug use. Friends, family, co-workers, etc who enable the behavior are people who simply avoid the conflict for one more day, even knowing how bad the situation really is.And when the time comes for intervention, the counsel workers invariably state that the family and friends must offer the addict a final solution. Either accept the help or cut them off completely. Why? Because nothing else has worked in the past.It's common sense that if you incentivize drug users with free, unlimited drugs, there is no no earthly reason to stop. This is different than drug treatment centers which will ensure that you don't suffer DT's on a decreasing dose.But your clinic doesn't offer that. It just says, come in and get free drugs. That doesn't help anything, it's dangerous, and it's an expense that the tax payer shouldn't be burdened by. I said enabling behavior, and I've consistently stated that. You're harping on a semantical argument instead of actually addressing the underlying issue. The point you are overlooking is that dispensing unlimited drugs, for free, offers no solution to an addict. It's just a way to get a fix and you are perpetuating and exacerbating the problem. It's about as useful as handing a suicidal man a gun."Oh, sir, please allow me to cock the hammer back for you."Being "nice" to people doesn't mean you're helping them. Exactly my point though. It's going to take an outside perspective telling them what the family has been saying all along for them to really take a step back and look at the carnage. It's going to take a drug treatment center to essentially incarcerate them and provide them declining doses to help.A clinic which simply dispenses drugs for free at an endless credit line is not a solution, it simply adds to the problem. That isn't a far stretch at all. Yes, doctors who perpetually administer drugs to addicts are complicit in the death of the addict. That's because there is no recovery plan, they just give what the addict wants.You do know that not all drug users from overdose, I imagine. But their livers fail, they have irreparable brain damage, they develop infections and blood poisoning, etc.

---

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

Trae, I don't agree with the war on drugs either, so you're barking up the wrong tree.The current discussion is whether or not dispensing drugs to addicts is the most advantageous or not.I am of the philosophy that it is not the best route.

---

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

What's the difference? Enabling behavior is enabling behavior regardless of where it's coming from.

---

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

Because it's not a role of the government. The government should not be waging wars on its citizens over drugs, nor should it expect its citizens to pay for the treatment of others.People tend to be very generous with other people's money, and very frugal with their own.

---

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

Give me a break. YOU created the false dichotomy, not me. I answered your question fully.YES, clinicians who administer drugs to patients are very much responsible for the health and well-being of their patients, just like any other health care professional would be. I mean, the question is so asinine that it's pointless to even address.Are you satisfied now, or are you going to continue to derail progress of the thread with useless semantics?

---

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

Okay, so here's the million dollar question: Why is it the government's role to provide funding for this, versus from private donation?The Salvation Army isn't run under the government, PBS isn't run by the government, etc, etc, and do quite well for themselves and their constituents.You may think that it is impractical, but the private, charitable donations of United States citizens attribute the largest amount of foreign aid in the world, surpassing even the U.S. government. Of the $122.8 billion dollars spent on foreign aid, $95.5 billion was given by private donation, accounting for 79% of the total charity. That's certainly nothing to scoff at.The government can't even manage its own books, it's now mathematically impossible to pay the staggering debt, and the dollar is on the verge of hyperinflation. Now we have a president who apparently thinks you can just print more money. He's dwarfed the budget of both Reagan and Bush Jr. (which seems impossible), and I simply have no confidence in his abilities as a leader.And here's the thing. People love to sanctimoniously judge people who don't believe in the efficacy of government programs. It's all fine and good until they actually have to give their own money. If all of you feel so impassioned about it, then put your money where your mouth is.

---

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

But it's a people's problem to eat too, and to shop for necessities they need, but that doesn't become a government problem because of its indispensable nature, right?So the question is why it automatically should be a burden to the government and the tax payer, when its other programs (the Drug War) has done nothing except squander trillions of dollars? They don't know how. They have no clue, as evidenced by the continued increase in budget spending. That's because they keep inventing jobs that don't serve a good purpose.Please peruse this information at your leisure, and tell me how many of these agencies could be scrapped. I mean, holy crap! How much of this is really a job for the federal government? Fraud, waste, and abuse. No, but that's the same preemptive mentality used to excuse going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. "We have to stop them here so they never get to us." It's manipulative and disingenuous. Yes, but I've been railing against that too. I don't see the need for the federal government to get involved. Justify this and you can justify everything to put some kind of spin on it so that everything we need should be provided by the government. Case in point

---

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