I think IF heroin was 100% legalized for adults and anyone could buy it over 21 or 18 you would see a lot of curiosity seekers trying it, but that happens right now too even though it is illegal. The kind of personality who wants to seek out and try heroin isn’t likely to care about the law, and I don’t think legalization will change that just that they will no longer be breaking the law. The shop could also counsel them on safe and sterile dose and use, instead of the current situation where people reuse syringes etc.
The people legalization will really help are addicts, if they can safely and cheaply get their supply it will be an amazing boon. They will no longer have to associate with criminals just to stay well, it will also help that legalization will help seperate drug culture from criminal culture. They can stop the hamster wheel existence of scrambling for cash to buy their next dose and hope busts have not occured, the clock starts ticking with every shot.
Once the supply is safe and standardized and consistent and cheap they will have a whole lot more free time and stability in their lives, which will allow them to start building a better life. Once most of your day is no longer consumed by acquiring drugs desperate for cash there isn’t much difference between a heroin addict and anyone else, they just need medicine to function.
The thing to realize is that there is really nothing that can be done to stop opiate use, the relapse rate is overwhelming. Most research shows that heroin use causes chemical changes in how the brain functions, maybe irreversible.
Punitive laws and obstacles does nothing to discourage use in addicts, it just makes their lives worse.
As I never said it was a good idea to give cannabis to a paranoid schizophrenic, I await your apology for both misrepresenting my statement and insulting me (and saying you’re sorry before doing it anyway doesn’t count). I was merely countering your previous claim that “we all know” someone who has “lost his mind” from smoking pot. Just because you know someone who has acted irrationally under the influence doesn’t mean that smoking pot makes people actually lose their minds. Also, just because you were not aware of any existing mental illness on their part doesn’t mean there wasn’t any.
Okay, I’m sorry for what I said, I guess I read your post wrong. I didn’t mean to antagonize, offend or put words into your mouth, I just thought that by what you had said you meant that it was okay for paranoid schizophrenics to smoke weed. It is clear this wasn’t your point and I’m sorry I read it wrong and then went onto reply in such a manner. I guess I just didn’t/don’t understand what point you were making by mentioning it. I was out of line calling you an idiot as I’m sure you are an intellectual person.
The fact that my friends could have had dormant mental illness’ is a very true prospect, and the cannabis use could have triggered it off. However this danger is clearly still there and I am sure there are a lot of people with these dormant mental illness’. I guess I find it hard to be objective when I have lost some very close friends to it. I still smoke and I absolutely love it but I am aware of the dangers and risks I run by smoking it.
I am not surprised you don’t know a conspiracy-theory buff you has became a recluse directly from smoking too much weed and going on the internet too much. I think I just assume people have seen this type of behavior as I have seen it time and time again, but every area is different and everybody is different.
Yes, I do agree with most of your post, but I don’t think legalization is the correct way forward. I see sending addicts to rehab as the lesser of two evils, when compared to allowing them to continue on shooting up. It is a terrifying prospect and I think most politicians are too afraid to tackle it, I fear that as a government and society, we will never come to a conclusion within our lifetimes.
Yeah, what I asked for was that part of the Constitution that says the Federal government owns my body and can dictate what I may or may not do with it, not quoting from a case about California law vs US law.
I am arguing that no government has authority to tell me what I can do with me, and all drugs SHOULD BE LEGAL. States being bound by a Constitution also follow the same logic. So, if you want to disagree, you should show how the Constitution DOES grant authority.
The fact that the government can just pass laws about something doesn’t mean they have authority to do so. They certainly have the power to do so and have done so. That isn’t what I’m saying.
We can go straight to the source which is what I proposed…see?
“That would be the part you should share, that part of the Constitution that says the Federal government owns my body and can dictate what I may or may not do with it.”
You can’t use your body to rob a bank, hit someone with a pipewrench, run a red light or engage in insider trading. Virtually every law that exists dictates what you can and can’t do with your body.
No, I just wanted to put to rest the silly notion that no one has the right to tell you what you can and cannot do.
Besides, we don’t live in a vacuum, and one person’s drug use - particularly in the case of hardcore drugs that can create auditory and visual hallucinations and/or psychotic episodes - often results in harmful consequences to people other than the user, be they immediate family or the public at large. Thus society is well within its rights to try to protect itself from the actions of people who have deliberately chosen to take leave of their minds.
And twisting what I said to imply I was talking about robbing banks was the route you decided to take to put it to rest? That was perhaps insightful.
What I did notice is you didn’t answer the part of Constitution granting authority, etc. and went off on an obvious tangent, no tangents go in a straight line, yours meandered all over the place. Also perhaps insightful.
There are already laws regulating behavior in public, which I agree with btw. Drunk in public for example. Different argument altogether.
So, we continue waiting for the part of the Constitution that grants authority to the Congress to tell me what I may do to/with my body.
That’s assinine, society has no right to arrest and prosecute someone for an unplanned crime because they might potentially commit. If what you are saying is true then we should start arresting people based purely on statistics alone.
mmmbeer, that would be the part which empowers Congress to create laws.
Besides, most drug laws apart from smuggling and interstate transportation fall under the purview of state and local governments anyway. So I’m afraid you’re complaining about the wrong entity if you want to blame the Constitution for prohibiting you from using your body in such a way that you’re likely to harm or endanger
When you consider also that society is vested in your behavior as a wacked-out druggie because it must cover the manpower and expense involved in trying you and keeping you imprisoned when you wack out and kill someone because you thought they were a monster, or because the voices in your head told you to, it becomes apparent that society has fiscal reasons as well as public safety reasons for protecting itself from your desire to “do what you want with your own body.”
I agree with post 70: society has no right to arrest and prosecute someone for an unplanned crime because they might potentially commit.
Unfortunately, in our Great Republic, you have to wait until I actually do something.
I like the argument that they should be legalised BECAUSE they do harm. I think certain people have done an end-around on the evolutionary process by protecting the stupid people from themselves and the old gene pool could use a good scrubbing.
Didn’t follow your link, so I’m just going with this part general principle.
If there is no choice, how can you tell the good guys from the bad guys?
Society has the right to enact laws to protect itself from hazardous behavior, and it has a right and obligation to arrest and imprison people who choose to violate those laws. How you jump from that to prosecuting people for committing offenses these laws are designed to prevent is anyone’s guess. After all, we don’t jail people for manslaughter simply because they’re caught speeding.
Your premise for continuing drug prohibition is that using said drugs can potentially cause someone to commit crimes to the detriment of society at large. This is assinine because not every drug user commits crime and arresting someone because they have the potential or are at an increased risk of committing those crimes is unjust.
Your argument about speeding is a strawman, because speeding occurs on roads which are public property and government has a right to regulate behavior on public property. Furthermore if I have a large piece of property, I can drive as fast as I want and not be ticketed. Similarly, government has no just reason to regulate what substances someone consumes in the privacy of their own property based on the belief that they could potentially commit a crime at some point in the future.
We have lots of laws on the books that apply to a majority of people who don’t cause harm of some sort. Not every speeder or drunk driver hits anyone. So you favor eliminating those laws on that basis? And again, they aren’t arrested because they have the potential to harm someone; they are arrested for breaking duly enacted laws created to guard against that potential. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
In most municipalities you can’t fire a gun or shoot off fireworks on your own property, and the reasoning is the same - there is simply too much potential for harm to innocent parties. (This includes your own friends and family, btw. You have no more right to expose a family member, friend or neighbor to harm, or to cause them harm, than you do anyone else. Anti-drug laws seek to protect those around you from harm as well as the public at large.) And of course you can’t rob, defraud, assault or murder anyone on your own property either.
I’d be careful about using that word “assinine” if I were you.
There is no difference between “my” opinion and the reports of the Global Commission on Drugs. I haven’t done any independent research, I just agree with the findings and recommendations of the commission.
Focusing on treatment rather than punishment, and creating a protective legal framework for people who are addicted to drugs seems to be the most effective way to reduce harm and if anything seems to reduce rather than increase the use of hard drugs.
For me it is not mainly a question of personal freedom, though I sympathise with the argument. I think it is ok to limit personal freedom if it has a beneficial effect on society as a whole. Here however, it seems as if we have a situation where we are both limiting individual freedom AND causing massive harm.
I don’t understand why you put “my” in quotation marks. Are you saying you don’t actually have a personal opinion on the topic and just enjoy quoting facts and figures? I understand your point but I don’t understand how legalization increases the amount of people attending rehab, if anything it decreases it. All I am asking is how exactly legalizing heroin will cut heroin addiction. I know it’s a hard question to answer but it is the basis of your entire argument. Punishment leads to treatment as rehab IS the punishment.