Psychologically ill people, like addicts, belong on the list of people society needs to be protected from.Whilst at the same time being fair to the addicts. I think the best solution is to give them the drugs they need. This cuts out the crimes they commit getting the drugs. It cuts out the criminal drug dealers. And it ensures they get the right doss of the right stuff. If this service was available on the national health it wouldn't create more addicts because the drugs would only be available to addicts. I'm sure people will come up with problems with this idea. But surely it's better than what we have now given how much crime is drug related.
My position is that drugs are so freely available now, nobody will notice the difference if they become legal. We'll have the same number of adddicts and abusers, but much less drug-related crime. The money saved could be used for effective drug education and rehab. LoisOn this, I agree with you, but you forgot that where the drugs are sold, the sale could be taxed, thus generating income for the Government, rather than costing the Government (tax payers) money. I don't know the numbers, but there are users who have good jobs and can afford to buy drugs. Not all addicts are homeless and on the street, those could be helped with social programs, paid for (at least it part) by the taxes on the sale of drugs.
I think the best solution is to give them the drugs they need. This cuts out the crimes they commit getting the drugs. It cuts out the criminal drug dealers. And it ensures they get the right doss of the right stuff.It would also insure that the drugs are "cut" with materials that are safe for the user. Now there are no regulations or oversight for the criminals that are mixing the drugs with whatever they can get their hands on.
A better way to evaluate it is, "we have to protect ourselves from those people".I want to be protected for gun owners.
I didn't mean you were wrong in this sense, but I agree that protecting people from themselves is an irritating liberal POV. A better way to evaluate it is, "we have to protect ourselves from those people".That is the proper role of the Government, the problem is who are "those people". Too often the definition is too inclusive. For example, should we be protected from "those people" who produce creosote, I would say no, but I would say yes that we should be protected from terrorists. Where do you draw the line?Psychologically ill people, like addicts, belong on the list of people society needs to be protected from. So do psychologically ill people who see boogie men in every shadow, yet we let them vote anyway. They invariably vote Republican.
Very wrong.The whiny liberal mantra, "We've got to protect these people from themselves". Wrong! If someone wants to do something stupid, with any luck they will eliminate themselves from the gene pool. One less stupid to deal with. It isn't liberals who think people need to be protected from themselves, it's conservatives. Just listen to them sometime on the subject of legalizing drugs. They will tell you that legalized drugs means everyon will imediately become an addict and the only reason it hasn't happened already is that keeping drugs illegal makes them less available. It isn't the first and it won't be he last time conservatives fail to see the bigger picture. It comes with the territory. Lois
Whilst at the same time being fair to the addicts.Giving them treatment - which is being done, is fair.
I think the best solution is to give them the drugs they need. This cuts out the crimes they commit getting the drugs. It cuts out the criminal drug dealers. And it ensures they get the right doss of the right stuff.Thats extremely dangerous and unethical. Prolonging addiction is recipe for disaster, addicts don't need more drugs, they need help getting off drugs.
If this service was available on the national health it wouldn't create more addicts because the drugs would only be available to addicts.Government assisted treatment for Heroin addiction exists in the US and UK. Not for any other drugs AFAIK.
A better way to evaluate it is, "we have to protect ourselves from those people".I want to be protected for gun owners.You're safe in Switzerland.
I find it's "conservatives" who are against legalizing drugs, not liberals. They're sure the whole country will become drug addicts if drugs are legalized.Thats not what I meant, however conservatives are totally correct that addiction will increase if drugs are legalized. (I mean true conservatives; there are so called conservatives who are pro-legalization, but they're really libertarians.)
My position is that drugs are so freely available now, nobody will notice the difference if they become legal. We'll have the same number of adddicts and abusers, but much less drug-related crime.Where did you hear this nonsense from?
The money saved could be used for effective drug education and rehab. LoisThere is money for effective treatment and rehab in most places, but thats not the main problem, the problem is the insidious nature of addiction. Do you really think that any high school student in the US in a town of around 100,000 people--or near such a town--can't get whatever drugs he wants? Marijuana is especially freely available. Drugs of all kinds are available in most of the country, including cocaine and heroin. The crime rates in most cites are as bad as they are because the price of illegal drugs is so high. If you doubt this you must be living in a cave. Lois
Do you really think that any high school student in the US in a town of around 100,000 people--or near such a town--can't get whatever drugs he wants?Its far from as easy as you think it is.
Marijuana is especially freely available.Yes, pot is maybe the most available drug, but it's not lethal.
Drugs of all kinds are available in most of the country, including cocaine and heroin.Cocaine is far from easy for a high school kid to get. Heroin and oxycondone are fairly easy to get in some places. Those areas have seen a recent increase in abuse as well. If opiates were legal, the numbers would be much higher. http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/02/us/heroin-use-rising/
The crime rates in most cites are as bad as they are because the price of illegal drugs is so high. If you doubt this you must be living in a cave. LoisThats one small reason for high crime, the rest have to do with race.
I want to be protected for gun owners.You're safe in Switzerland. Safer than in the US, less safe than in many other countries]:
Gun laws and policy vary considerably around the world. Some countries such as South Korea, Indonesia, China, United Kingdom and Germany have strict gun regulations. Other countries like Yemen, Switzerland, Czech Republic, and United States, allow for comparatively greater access.And here]:
Switzerland thus has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world.But there are definitely less gun fans and idiots in Switzerland than in the US.
I think the best solution is to give them the drugs they need. This cuts out the crimes they commit getting the drugs. It cuts out the criminal drug dealers. And it ensures they get the right doss of the right stuff.It would also insure that the drugs are "cut" with materials that are safe for the user. Now there are no regulations or oversight for the criminals that are mixing the drugs with whatever they can get their hands on. Yep.
Giving them treatment - which is being done, is fair.Treatments fair but what isn't fair is they are dependent on the drugs so have to attempt to get them. So they steal and are treated like criminals for stealing and they have to get drugs from criminals with all that's unsafe about that.
Thats extremely dangerous and unethical. Prolonging addiction is recipe for disaster, addicts don't need more drugs, they need help getting off drugs.I'm not sure how dangerous it is. I hear Alcohol is one of the most dangerous drugs. The dose can be regulated and the quality of what they get can be regulated. So much less dangerous than how that get the drugs at the moment. And there is no reason to think this prolongs the drug use. They still can try to give up. And in some cases that won't be best, it's not always best to give up an addiction sometimes managing it is better.
I’m on my latest attempt to give up alcohol b.t.w. Day three 
Giving them treatment - which is being done, is fair.Treatments fair but what isn't fair is they are dependent on the drugs so have to attempt to get them. So they steal and are treated like criminals for stealing and they have to get drugs from criminals with all that's unsafe about that.
Thats extremely dangerous and unethical. Prolonging addiction is recipe for disaster, addicts don't need more drugs, they need help getting off drugs.I'm not sure how dangerous it is. I hear Alcohol is one of the most dangerous drugs. The dose can be regulated and the quality of what they get can be regulated. So much less dangerous than how that get the drugs at the moment. And there is no reason to think this prolongs the drug use. They still can try to give up. And in some cases that won't be best, it's not always best to give up an addiction sometimes managing it is better. I understand where you're speaking from, but only in the most deadly scenarios should addiction be allowed to continue - and even then only temporarily. The damage accumulates too quickly.
I'm on my latest attempt to give up alcohol b.t.w. Day three :-)Good luck to you, mate.
I'm on my latest attempt to give up alcohol b.t.w. Day three :-)Good luck to you, mate. Thank you
I'm on my latest attempt to give up alcohol b.t.w. Day three :-)I'll drink to that. Seriously that was 3 days ago, so how are you doing, and what was your motivation for doing it. I know that any addiction can be difficult, it's possible to stop, but it has to come from inside, nothing from the outside can make you stop.
... I know that any addiction can be difficult, it's possible to stop, but it has to come from inside, nothing from the outside can make you stop.I think that truism is incorrect. The "inside" of us is typically impacted by what is outside of us. Mice in an impoverished setting, with free access to cocaine water will dose themselves until they die. If they have the option of regular water and an environment that is highly enriched (from a mouse's perspective) they will typically ignore the cocaine water. The applicable corollary of this, it seems to me, is that, if one wishes to overcome alcohol (or other chemical) abuse, the enriched and open availability of alternative ways to experience pleasure and avoid pain, is essential.
... I know that any addiction can be difficult, it's possible to stop, but it has to come from inside, nothing from the outside can make you stop.I think that truism is incorrect. The "inside" of us is typically impacted by what is outside of us. Mice in an impoverished setting, with free access to cocaine water will dose themselves until they die. If they have the option of regular water and an environment that is highly enriched (from a mouse's perspective) they will typically ignore the cocaine water. The applicable corollary of this, it seems to me, is that, if one wishes to overcome alcohol (or other chemical) abuse, the enriched and open availability of alternative ways to experience pleasure and avoid pain, is essential. That is true to a point, but it is the inside that must start the process. I have seen a few cases and it was always the inside desire that was key. In one case the person wanted to quit but till they got into an environment where they were supported in their desire, they were not successful. Once they sere in a situation where everyone around them supported them, they were able to quit. In another case the person really didn't want to quit even though many were encouraging them , but they put on a show, and didn't quit.