You don't see the correlation between dismanting fences to consumption and increasing consumption?
But even if it were true, so what?
I would imagine you'd want to do a cost-benefit analysis before making currently illicit drugs more freely available. Consider that your action could produce more people addicted to/negatively affected by drugs than the current policy does.
How would addicts receiving free fixes at a state clinic have any price effect elsewhere?
I was dealing with a view which would:
..decriminalize drug use, nationalize drug productions, subsidize it and give them away for free through a local clinic setting where users also get free medical care and education.
Currently drugs cost folk money. This policy would ensure drugs cost no money. A current (significant) impediment to consumption eliminated would produce (according to the aforementioned rule of thumb) an increase in drug consumption. That doesn't strike me as an intelligent policy.
Your point seems to deal with only addicts so perhaps we're ships passing?
Currently drugs cost folk money. This policy would ensure drugs cost no money. A current impediment to consumption
Can you show any evidence that the fact drugs cost money is an impediment? If it was such an impediment why is drug dealing such a lucrative profession? Oh yeah, people steal and kill to get money for drugs,
Yes I can see how that is much better for society.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
It's generally considered a negative thing. If a policy produces a negative result then it's not usually considered a good policy.
So let's examine the position.
Note that many companies have "random drug testing". There is a reason for that. A big one is that most drug use simply can't be detected without drug testing. The people continue to function and perform their jobs. Now granted, there are a few jobs where zero tolerance might be applicable, but for the majority of positions it is just silly.
The current position is as clearly a failure and it is time to step back and try something different.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Fair enough. If you don't see increased consumption of addictive/damaging substances as a negative thing then there really isn't much to discuss.
he current position is as clearly a failure and it is time to step back and try something different.
The current system is a relative failure. Relative to a better system that is. Unless the alternative can reasonably be expected to improve on the current then there is no reason to change. The fact that the current has failings doesn't mean anything else is better.
Do you have a problem remembering what the fuck you are talking about? The fact that alcohol and cigarette consumption is dropping directly contradicts your baseless assertion:
A general rule of thumb when it comes to consumables tells us that as access simplifies > consumption goes up.
You claim that legalising substances increases their consumption. And when I show you that legal drug consumption is dropping: you post a link to research into how to reduce the consumption of legal drugs. You don't seem to know what you are saying.
Your claim that legalising drugs increases their consumption is still just an assertion lacking any support. Legalisation and education have a proven history of reducing consumption: we can see it happening all around us.
My philosophy, when it comes to drugs, is non-intervention.
That's certainly the easiest philosophy... but what about the people that need help? That's who were talking about here. There's plenty of people using drugs with no problems, and they should be left alone, yes. But there's also people who have problems, and leaving them alone doesn't help and only makes things worse.
But there is another way of handling things that I also disagree with, and those are the people who facilitate addicts.
The last thing we should do is let addicts fend for themselves on the streets, no?
They facilitate them by making sure they can shoot up (or by whatever delivery method) safely and in their care.
That's not all they do. Consuling, treatment, and education are all part of the facilitation too.
By doing this, you only ensure that people will die at their own hand.
Well sure, if all they did was leave a basket of free drugs on the doorstep, then you might have a point. But there's a lot more to it. How many time have you been treated for drug addiction? How do you know what you know about it?
These people are complicit in the deaths of the very people they try to help because they're enablers.
Drug addiction treatment facility workers are not enablers. The goal is to stop them from using.
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.
Yeah, they bring in an expert from a facility and they come in and show the family how to stop enabling the addict and then take them to a facility where they can get treatment, which includes free drugs.
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?
Because being an addict sucks...
I think most addicts do want to be clean, they are just unable (hence them being addicts).
But we can limit this to just those who don't.
Now, we can assume that there are going to be some happy-to-be addicts that would rely on everyone else for free drugs and a place to do nothing.
There's going to be some cost associated with that upon the rest of society, regardless of how we handle them.
So, if the cost to house them and enable them was less than the cost to fight them, would you be for it then?
The fact is that addicts are going to cost us money - so we should be looking at how to reduce that where possible.
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