In keeping drugs illegal, please explain the difference between putting someone in jail versus letting someone drug themselves to an early death.

Putting drug users in jail, or even addiction treatment programs, puts them in an "us" versus them position. Often times, addicts rebound. Their statement becomes, "i want to do drugs. It is my life. it is my choice."

Shouldn't it be their choice to use?

Many will say, "but, we love this drug addict. they have changed into this person we dont know." In that case, the burden is a society that does not allow drug use. The addict is addicted to something illegal. They become a burden to family/friends - they become criminals. Sure, it is selfish that your friend/loved one chooses to become something else. But, what would you say to them in demanding that they choose you over their pleasure?

A change of environment.

Laws that enable addicts to seek treatment at their discretion without having to lose their life from running away addicted: They avoid expensive lifestyle changes (ghettos to buy, perhaps theft to get money) for more practical, approachable ways of being addicted: an open system of recovery without threat of loss of freedom.

Learning to live as a happy addict.

Addicts cannot be happy behind bars or by losing their family/friends. A supportive society enabling addicts is a compromise worth considering. Think of addicts in this light as satisfied knowing they wont be jailed. Their health may deteriorate but the ball is in their court. There has to be some light to this.

Self-empowered addict can heal.

Addicts know they will not function enough to work. However, since drugs are legal, they must work. This is the struggle that defeats them in a society with anti-drug legislation. They know they cannot win. They choose a life on the streets: the underground. BUT, consider the majority of addicts who want to do well. They go largely under-represented in todays paradigm. In other words, they do well covering their ass from the law enforcement who want to bust them.

Addicts as mentors.

You wouldnt know this unless you met them. And you will never meet them if you are anti-drug, pro-legislation. These users are lawyers, doctors, politicians and police. They are in abundance because they have mastered a life system of 'drug use' and learning how to function. Only those close can learn from them. Society has to bring them to the front-and-center, use their knowledge and life skills and teach responsible drug use. Wow. What a concept: responsible drug use.

Addicted mentors as prisoners.

Unfortunately, the current paradigm silences them with jail time and forced compliance without acknowledging the patterns that supported their responsible life skills. What could have happened which broke this responsible life skill pattern? Many possibilities, especially when Drug Enforcement Agencies actively seek them out. Perhaps someone close ratted them out. Perhaps a drug deal went wrong. Whatever the case, the addicted mentor must now apply life skills to follow the law: and were back at square one trying to figure out how to help the irresponsibly addicted so they will not die.

Forced compliance? Its not working. Got any other ideas? Well, this one was mine and I hope some others as well. Society needs the responsible drug users. Thoughts?

__________________

I say Legalize it. This war on drugs isnt working just like Prohabiton didnt work in the 1920s

AZ voted to legalize all drugs - and gave mandatory sentences of no more than drug counselling for the first 3 offences. Of course, the feds made the first part illegal, but at least no one goes to jail or prison for a while.

I remember reading about a high school principal who balanced a heroine addiction with her job, and was highly successful. Had to mea culpa and get fired anyway when her addiction was discovered. So, what's the big deal if her job wasn't being affected. I consider most drug laws to be nanny laws - impossible to enforce, and expensive to try - both in lives ruined and taxes spent.

Legalize and tax it - as was done before the early part of this century - when heroine, concaine and opium were common substances found in pharmacies, and marijuana was just a weed some people liked to smoke. (In fact, marijuana was used in early psychotherapy because it an trigger the cascade effect).

__________________
And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." --George W. Bush, Jan. 29, 2007

There are a lot of convincing arguments for drug legislation.

The prosecution of drugs cause more or less the same affects as the prohibition of alcohol.
The result of prohibition isn`t an decrease of drug addicts, because black markets replace the legal markets. The mafia replaces the merchants and corporations.

It increases criminality, because drug-trafficers can`t appeal the court to solve problems.
It is also possible, that a legalization of drugs would lead to a lower price of drugs. This could have also a benevolent effect on the criminality, because consumers had less pressure to finance their addict through criminality

Prohibition would also lead to more hamful drugs, because there is no competition for better products as in legal markets. The result of lacking competition is, that there is no declaration of the acting ingedients and their quantity. Remember, that a lot of people die because they overdosed.
The prohibition of alcohol caused for example the developement of self-created alcohol. This self-created alcohol is sometimes very harmful for the consumer. Some people lost theig sight or even theif lifes through this self-created stuff.

The only profiters of Prohibition are the mafia-clans, which could get a lot of manoy thanks to their monopoly in the drug distribution.

Why should the taxpayer spent money on the prohibition of drugs, when the prohibition couses more harm than benefit?

And why should the state punish people, who did only harm themselves?

I am opposed to Legalizing, but agree with De-criminalizing them (ThereIS a difference)

I think I would require two special provisions to be attached to any legislation legalizing all drugs.

First, the penelty for any crime committed or damage done while under the influance of the drugs may not be reduced merely because the indiduval was "high" or "intoxicated" at the time. If you volentarily ingest a substance that reduces your judgement, then you are fully responsible for any actions that result from your imparied decision making ability.
E.G. If you run someone down in your car because you were on crack and out of control, you get hit will vehicular manslaughter and suffer the same penelty you would face if you had been perfectly lucid at the time; being "under the influance" will not be an admittable defense in court.

Second, no local,, state or federal health program shall pay for an individual's medical treatment for any ailment directly linked to a drug. For insurance purposes, such ailments may be considered purposefully self-inflicted.
E.G. If you waste your lungs, liver and kidneys on drugs and need transplants or surgery, you will not receive care at the expense of the tax payers. Nor shall the taxpayers be required to pay for rehabilitation or detox programs (with a possible exception of once or twice per individual, to provide some grace for making stupid mistakes).

While you may have the right to engage in seriously mind-altering substances, you are fully responsible (legally and financially) for any action you take while your mind is altered.

Funny democratic people.

Not only democracy is the regime that has done best for drugs, but they now want to make drugs legal. Probably as a cheap way of explaining any misfunctionings in their democratic societies.

The most interesting bit would be to see what line democratic people will draw.
Will they opt for legalization of any kind of drugs, including drugs that are not still invented or will they sink in a regulation mode a la democratic gun trading?

The second alternative would definitively fail to eradicate maffias and like just like in democratic gun trading for which it appears there are prohibited weaponry -carefully chosen by democratic people, thus a ground for maffia.

Whatsoever, the simple idea that democratic people could do something the maffia phenomenum is illusory. Both maffia and the democratic society have the same social structure as a core: the gang.

Better to say that democracy is the future of the maffia.
Just like drugs dealers, maffia men must laudate democracy as the regime that have done best for them.

You really like that word "democratic" don't you?

I favor legalization. But, I do have a qualm about it and as far as I am concerned, this is the only thing I'm waiting on hearing the pro-legalization side make a provision on. As soon as that becomes agreed upon, I'm good to go with it. It is your body to do whatever you want with, which is why I'M not going to pay for it. If someone ingests drugs into their body and damages their lungs, liver, and brain -- how the hell am I supposed to honestly support footing the bill? People do a have freedom to these things. However, it is also their responsibility -- You want to smoke and drink yourself to shit? You can sit in it.

We pay for drug abuse related health problems now. And the legality of the drugs is irrelevant to whether the care is paid for. I see no logical connection between legalizing drugs and cutting off funding for drug abuse related health problems.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

IMO we should legalize all drugs and do away with prescription laws while we're at it.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

The fact that we pay for it now is perhaps something that should be looked in to all by itself.

Linking it with legalization seems fairly natural, especially since legalizing all drugs will almost certainly increase usage and therefore (at least in the short term) drug-related health problems.

@tim

Health-care should also be a buisness of the free market. The insurance companies should decide, how to deal with drug-addicts.
(I think it`s possible, that members who take care more about their health would get a bonus and vice versa)

Looking into it all by itself is a legitimate point I suppose - but fraught with many ambiguities and grey areas - so many that I personally don't see how it could be done.

But the link is not natural at all. Drug addiction (which is the predicate for most drug abuse related health issues) is a problem in a relatively constant percentage of the population. The only change will be in the particular drugs being abused - not the number of abusers. Besides, some of the health problems related to illegal drug use are a product of the high cost of those drugs and the difficulty of obtaining them. Those problems will disappear with legalization.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

Except there is no such thing as a "free market" and our experiment over the last 100 years or so pretty much proves you cannot make a profit insuring the poor and the sick.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon