If there was an internet award for oversimplifying an issue and reaching the dumbest conclusion, the OP could coach the US team.
With you as their star player?
It wouldn’t matter if the government PAID people to use it. They would still have to steal to survive because it would destroy their lives.
Nicotine and Oreos are as addictive as heroin.
And plenty of people hold down jobs with the monkey on their back. They’re called “rich people”. Ever heard of Keith Richards?
The harm comes from prohibition, and the war our governments have raged on drug users for almost a century. It’s time to stop the madness and let people do what they want to their own bodies. This expensive, unsuccessful, petty authoritarian class war has got to end.
Uh huh. Best of luck with your pet monkey.
Patently false. I’ve never met a single person who sold all of their possessions for Oreos or cigarettes. They may be just as habitual but the withdrawal from Oreos or cigarettes doesn’t have the potential to actually kill you. You do not become physically dependent upon those.
These types of false equivalence are an ignorant attempt to minimize the devastating effects of drugs like heroin in a misguided effort to point the finger at the “nanny state” and claim we should be able to do whatever the hell we want.
I’m fine with all that. You agree, though, that if the quality of product goes up, and price goes down, then demand for the product goes up, right?
Cite for “devastating effects” of heroin that cannot be directly tied to the persecution of users.
Cite for lethal effects of opiate withdrawl.
Cite for not becoming physically addicted to cigarettes.
Cite for you not being the star player on your hypothesized internet team.
You realize that you have failed to say anything more substantive than, “I think therefore I’m right neener neener neener.”
Suicide should be legal. So should all other forms self destructive behavior. Frankly I don’t care how addictive it is, or how little it makes you care about the rest of your life. You ought to be able to do it if it doesn’t harm others.
But yes, pretending it is a unique boogey man is factually wrong. It exists on a continuum with aspirin, marijuana, nicotine, alcohol, cocaine, vicodin and caffeine. People ought to be able to decide how best to self medicate, regardless whether their doctor or local law enforcement disagrees. Give them honest, unbiased information and let them sort it out for themselves.
No, because there are comparatively few people that would be interested.
Even if a bunch of people tried it (which I doubt) many people try smoking, drinking, grass etc. without going back to it because they didn’t like the effect.
As the drugs get more potent the number of people willing to try them diminishes. From that diminishing population the majority would try once and never again. Of those that repeated the exposure the majority of *them would be occasional users. Of those occasional users a small group would develop a habit.
How many tea-totallers do you know? How many casual drinkers? How many heavy - but not problem - drinkers? How many drunks? I’d bet it follows a pretty basic bell curve.
I never said that.
You really can’t read can you. Go back and check what I wrote,
I just gave you some citations.
The problem is that it does harm others because the rest of us will inevitably end of taking care of the junkies because we have too much empathy to step over their stupid asses until they become bloated corpses.
I can kind of see DrCube’s point that personal responsibility and rights should trump moral or even practical issues.
But to argue that heroin isn’t addictive and doesn’t harm the users is just about the most asinine thing ever posted on the internet. Only a fucking moron would make this claim when the vast preponderance of evidence opposes it.
Just to ask, what’s the short list of drugs that this argument is often made over? I can think of heroin and crystal meth — are there any others? LSD? PCP?
Some argue that if the “softer” drugs were legal, no one would “resort” to heroin, ice, etc. Kind of a dumb argument, IMO.
emphasis added
That’s the one cite you asked for that I can answer immediately.
I don’t have the time right now to read your cites, but I will and then respond.
I gotta say though drugabuse.com does not fill me with confidence as to objectivity.
P.S. on re-reading your post - the comment about you being the star player applies to your idea of an internet team of oversimplifiers that ought be coached by the OP. Do you read your own stuff?
So heroin became a big problem after it became illegal. And this is an argument for keeping it illegal?
Well, no, you’re wrong on the science. I won’t argue over Oreos but nicotine is just as physically addictive as heroin and you don become physically dependent on it and it will kill you.
But you are right about people not selling all their possessions to buy nicotine. But I think that’s because nicotine is legal. Which does not make a good argument for keeping other drugs illegal.
Just to be clear, are you stating that withdrawal from cigarettes is equivalent to heroin with drawl and can be fatal?
He asked for negative effects other than addiction itself which don’t result from persecution and prohibition. You have failed in this. The negative effects in those links are infection, disease and poisoning by cutting agents, all of which are a result of prohibition. And, of course, addiction and withdrawal. They mention decreased kidney function on the wiki but state it isn’t known whether it is caused by cutting agents or disease, which I suppose might mean it could just be an effect of heroin use itself. Apart from that, you got nutting.
I’ve never actually seen that argument, but it would be dumb.
I’ve seen people argue for the legalisation of pretty much all drugs. Some are mostly harmless and should clearly be legal. MDMA, special K, LSD, mescaline, psilocybin and sweet, sweet Mary Jane. The only effects of prohibition are to make the use of these drugs more dangerous and costly and to criminalise otherwise law-abiding people who aren’t hurting anyone else (other than the carcinogenic effects of second-hand grass smoke).
On the other hand harder drugs, the habit forming ones like crack, smack, crystal meth and the like are more debatable. To me the evidence seems clear that the current system is the worst available and the harm-reduction model is better than either legalisation or the current system.