> Drugs, sex, gambling, bigamy, etc; basically laws based on Christian morality
I'm curious what you say to the argument that manufacturing and profiting off extremely addictive and harmful drugs (ie meth or heroin) is a victumful crime?
Many people get "hooked" on drugs like this, and it often ruins them both physiologically and financially. How can you justify ignoring such people as victims? Especially if they were young or even children when they started?
Actually, you have to use heroin regularly for months to become physiologically addicted. The time is shorter than for alcohol but not instantaneous.
What catches people is a psychological addiction: heroin high just feels incredibly good (disclaimer: I did not try it so I translate other peoples' opinions). But the same can be said about alcohol, sugar, games like the infamous 2048, and great many other things.
Of course there are substances that would kill the user quickly and harm even from one use, like PCP or the infamous krokodil. But the same can be said about methanol, or sulphuric acid, or many other hazardous substances. These substances are appropriately packed, abundantly labeled with warnings — but their use is not banned.
> Actually, you have to use heroin regularly for months to become physiologically addicted.
I don't think I'm remiss in saying that most who start using heroin do in fact get to that point, am I?
> These substances are appropriately packed, abundantly labeled with warnings — but their use is not banned.
Comparing sulphuric acid to heroin is a huge stretch for me. Sure, injecting sulphuric acid into your arm is definitely going to be a lot more harmful than heroin... but heroin is intended to be used as a drug, and is harmful when used as intended. The acid is not.
Though I don't have any stats ready on how many heroin users end up as addicts that actually hurt their health, and how many recover later, you don't seem to have it either. Before we have some kind of numbers, I don't think discussing this can lead anywhere constructive.
I'm pretty sure that most users of nicotine (as smoked tobacco or in electronic cigarettes) get physiologically addicted pretty quickly, and in a pretty hard way. Though this is inconvenient to them, it usually does not bother people around, because nicotine is not a behavior-altering substance (unlike alcohol or cocaine). AFAIK, heroin is not a behavior-altering substance either. It's the lack of a dose what dangerously alters the behavior of a heroine addict (or an alcohol addict).
Since heroin is outlawed, users have far lower thresholds to pass to act unlawfully in other regards, since they feel like criminals already. A heavy nicotine addict may suffer immensely without a fix, but usually stays a lawful citizen despite it.
Take insulin: it's also intended to be used as a drug, and improper use can quickly kill you. Thats why it's a prescription-only substance, but a completely lawful one. Quite a few over-the-counter drugs can kill you, or at least severely cripple you, if used improperly. Do you think outlawing them is a good idea? (Hell, 3/4 pound of table salt, if ingested quickly, would kill you. I hope you exercise reason when adding salt to your food.)
> Quite a few over-the-counter drugs can kill you, or at least severely cripple you, if used improperly. Do you think outlawing them is a good idea?
No, of course I don't: making something illegal because it is dangerous when misused or used contrary to its intended purpose is silly. I'm not arguing that.
What I am arguing is that a substance that is created to be used in a specific manner, and causes known substantial harm when used in that manner should not be tolerated by society.
That's what a cigarette is: it's this thing that is made to be used in a way that has been shown without a shadow of a doubt to contribute to many fatal ailments in a major way.
I put heroin and meth in that category: dangerously addictive substances that are known to cause substantial harm when used as intended.
You've confused drug use with drug abuse. You've demonized recreational drug use and decided people shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves what they put in their own bodies. You are the reason we're having this ridiculous drug war and you are the problem with this country.
> You've demonized recreational drug use and decided people shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves what they put in their own bodies.
There's an enormous difference between prohibiting individual use of a dangerous drug, and allowing somebody to manufacture and sell a dangerous drug for profit. The latter troubles me deeply, and that's what I'm talking about.
Profiting off of human suffering is not something society should ever tolerate.
> There's an enormous difference between prohibiting individual use of a dangerous drug, and allowing somebody to manufacture and sell a dangerous drug for profit.
No there isn't, if it's acceptable to consume, it's acceptable to sell; you can't allow one without the other and claim any sort of logic behind it, it's simply stupid.
> Profiting off of human suffering
And once again confusing use with abuse. Drug users are not suffering.
1. when did i pull an assertion out of thin air? I stated my opinion, I didn't "assert" anything.
2. why am I narrow-minded for disagreeing with you? that seems pretty "narrow-minded" to "assert" that.
3. I never said we should outlaw alcohol but I don't think anyone would disagree that society would be a lot better if alcohol didn't exist.
That we as a society allow groups of men to make billions selling a tremendously addictive product that has unequivocally been shown to kill its users is, for me, absolutely heinous.
The _abuse_ of anything is bad. Alcohol is still a societal danger. If you really want to protect people you should make it illegal.
But I bet you like a drink now and then, so you're willing to let other people die so you can get a buzz on.
Edit: can't reply to your reply so I'm appending here:
Your non reply confirms my guess. Because you like your drug of choice you are ok with it being legal, but other people can get fucked. Do you really think people are protected from drugs by making them illegal?
Have you ever given a moments thought to the death and destruction that comes from the War on Drugs itself? Do you have any notion of what a powerful weapon it has become in the war on humanity?
Or are you just a sanctimonious narcissistic nanny-stater? This madness continues because of support from people like you, you twit.
> Your non reply confirms my guess. Because you like your drug of choice you are ok with it being legal, but other people can get fucked.
Alcohol is not my drug of choice. You're assuming a lot here...
> Do you really think people are protected from drugs by making them illegal?
Do I think prosecuting individuals for using drugs makes sense? Not at all, and that has never been my argument here.
I don't want Meth4U Inc. getting people hooked on meth, ruining their lives, and making a massive profit off of them. That is unconscionable.
So decriminalize the use of all drugs. I don't care. I never said I did. Going after individual users is a ridiculous waste of money and human capital.
However, I feel very strongly that the manufacture and sale of dangerous drugs like meth and heroin (or cigarettes) should not be tolerated by society. Will people still find a way to get away with it? Probably, but it's quite a bit harder to make and keep a profit if it's illegal.
> Or are you just a sanctimonious narcissistic nanny-stater?
I think that profiting off of human suffering is not something society should ever tolerate. If that makes me a "nanny-stater", so be it.
Occasionally eating McDonalds on road trips isn't good for you, sure, but it's not going to meaningfully harm you in the long run unless you do it frequently.
I've read articles pointing to physically addictive effects of fast food, but comparing that to nicotine is silly.
OK, first, leave children out of this discussion. That's a play on emotions and doesn't belong in a discussion about what consenting adults should or shouldn't be allowed to do. As with all things children related, we can have different laws for them; giving children drugs is victimizing them as they're not capable of making those choices legally or emotionally.
Now, to your point. No one forced anyone to try drugs; I reject any notion that you're your own victim. If you choose to put something in your body, that's a choice, you were not victimized by anyone. That it can and does often ruin people both physiologically and financially are called consequences of your actions. No one forced you, there is no victim here.
> OK, first, leave children out of this discussion. That's a play on emotions
I'm not meaning to play emotions; however, I don't think you can just write it off: if all drugs were legalized, you would see use among youth increase (just as you would likely see an increase in any other subset of the population).
> If you choose to put something in your body, that's a choice, you were not victimized by anyone.
For me, very physiologically addictive substances are a different category: in that case, you have somebody with full knowledge of the danger and addictiveness of the drug knowingly enticing others to start using it with the end goal of causing them to become addicted and making a lot of money off of them. I see that as a very low form of extortion.
I will not try meth because, despite whatever curiosity I have about the drug's effects, I know I am probably not capable of willing my way out of a very real physical addiction. Somebody less educated and rational is much more likely to say, "Sure, I'll try it once", and go downhill from there. For me, that person is being victimized. Sure, they made the decision, but it was an uninformed one.
Now, I have no idea how to solve that problem. I think that the US's ridiculous drug policy probably ruins more lives than the drugs would if they were legal. But whenever I think about blanket legalization, I can't escape feeling uneasy about the above.
Then offer medical help, but outlawing drugs is a failed solution and that applies to all drugs. Prohibition creates more problems than it solves and it makes the state an enemy of its own citizens. Prohibition doesn't work, it does not work.
That uneasy feeling is called cognitive dissonance, you're realizing the propaganda you've been fed is wrong but you haven't yet accepted its complete failure even though you know it intellectually.
I didn't get ticked off, and religion and sex are relevant, children are not as I've been clear about "between consenting adults" for precisely this reason.
I'm curious what you say to the argument that manufacturing and profiting off extremely addictive and harmful drugs (ie meth or heroin) is a victumful crime?
Many people get "hooked" on drugs like this, and it often ruins them both physiologically and financially. How can you justify ignoring such people as victims? Especially if they were young or even children when they started?