Namaste,

Addiction is not another problem entirely. If people were not addicted there would not be a need for drug control. If everyone that tried drugs simply tried them, or used them every once in a while, then this would be a simple problem to address. However, drug use doesn't work that way. Many drugs are instantly addictive. Meth, heroin, cocaine and others create an instant addictive impulse.

The original post ignored the very real issue of the impact of drug use on others beside the user. These are deep and troubling issues that are almost never addressed by those advocating legalization of drugs. They assume that the only person of concern is the drug user and ignore the impact on the lives of others. There seems to be a fantasy that if we legalize drugs all of a sudden the addicts will start thinking clearly about their use of drugs and start being responsible. I have never seen any indication that this occurs during srug use. None of the drug users I know have any sense of responsibilty concerning their drug of choice. They only care about getting more and spending their time sedated from reality.

I will give you one point. If we legalize drugs then people will realize the drug issue. I am quite sure that the addition of millions of addicts would bring the problem to national attention.

I will reiterate one of my statements. Drug use is a choice. In most circumstances, no one makes a person use drugs. If you know that drugs are illegal, and you choose to use them anyway, then your choice is to risk going to prison. If you don't want to go to jail or prison don't use drugs. If you do use drugs then accept that you are eventually going to go to prison.

In peace,
Eglaelin

PS. I wonder where people got the idea that drug use was good for you since so many people want to argue to make them legal. I must have missed all the famous and productive drug users in history.

__________________

It would be good if politicians realised that drug use and addiction is a medical issue and not something efficiently and effectively dealt with by the criminal law.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

I have long believed that one of the major problems with the American system of justice is that we have far too many things that our courts consider criminal while being too soft on perpetrators of crimes. These things have created an unecessary "gray area". We ought to decriminalize any action which does not pose a direct and immediate threat to the safety or freedom of other citizens while simultaneously making prisons less comfortable and prison sentences stiffer.

Namaste,


Define "direct and immediate."

In Peace,
Eglaelin

__________________

Well obviously that has to be the domain of the courts. I will however give some examples of what I would take to mean "direct and immediate" and then some examples to the contrary.

Pulling a gun out and pointing it at a person - direct threat.
Owning a gun (even if you have a prior criminal record) - not

Being under the influence of a drug - not
Being under the influence of a drug while driving an automobile - direct threat

If you would like more specific example ask and I will give you my opinion.

Well, state-funded healthcare is a bullshit idea to begin with. So I think your problem lies there. I oppose it, too.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

That's not really fair. Either inject both or drink both.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

We are not the private property of the government that exists solely to further the government. Sorry.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Why tax it at all?

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Namaste,

Would you consider using a drug while your children are present to be a direct threat to their lives? I do. Of course, I consider smoking while your children are in the room or car to be a direct threat to them as well.

In Peace,
Eglaelin

__________________

No, I don't think it's the government's job to protect me from myself. But I have a way to treat both sides of the argument the way they want to be treated. Those that want to be protected from themselves can call the government and ask them to place them on a "do not sell drugs to" list. Everyone else can buy any drugs they want.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

I would in both cases. I would equate drug use with neglect, and I would equate smoking to child abuse (as smoking cause immediate and long lasting damage to children's lungs among other things.)

No. But someone who tries to kill them while under the influence of said drug would be a direct threat.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Namaste,

I should have said "children instead" of your "children".

If drug use is Ok does a childcare provider using drugs constitute a direct threat to your, or any, children. If drug use is legal what stops a caregiver from using marijuana, heroin, crack or meth while children are in their care. There are always more things to consider than most people think about.

In peace,
Eglaelin

__________________

As well, criminalising pleasure degrades the criminal law in the minds of the community.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh