6 ms·

A lot of these same "legalize everything" people want a lot of money put into rehabilitation programs. Also, making this stuff illegal hasn't exactly proven to

A lot of these same "legalize everything" people want a lot of money put into rehabilitation programs. Also, making this stuff illegal hasn't exactly proven to make it difficult to get- in fact, the highest growing segment of drug use for quite some time is prescription drugs, but even the full-on-illegal stuff isn't difficult to get in most neighborhoods. For what it's worth, I'm more on the "decriminalize" side(ie, no jail time for simple possession, heavier fines/time for the sale/smuggling of significant quantities). Also, my own view may be biased from the fact that a parent was addicted to prescription opioids.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
This is like saying we'll give matches to children but build more fire stations. Just getting addicted is social harm and hard to recover from. Most addicts claims its a daily fight for the rest of their lives. I don't think millions (billions?) of dollars pushed into rehab programs are remotely as effective as trying to keep it out of the hands of would-be users. Also, it makes more sense to address the mental issues addicts might be trying to self-medicate for instead of handing them a jug of meth and telling them to go have a good time. >quite some time is prescription drugs I imagine as we continue crack down on bullshit "pain clinics" this stuff is going to go way down. We're already seeing it Florida and elsewhere as legislation is catching up to corrupt doctors. I don't know why people make this sounds like its a given and will never change. The recent rise of prescription opiate abuse is well know and is being reigned back in.
- ahoy 11y ago
  No, it's like saying "These adults already have matches. Lets stop locking them up for having matches."
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >I don't think millions (billions?) of dollars pushed into rehab programs are remotely as effective as trying to keep it out of the hands of would-be users. Considering the effectiveness of prohibition is a rounding error away from 0, it wouldn't take much for rehabilitation to be better.
- eyeinthepyramid 11y ago
  > This is like saying we'll give matches to children but build more fire stations. By that analogy, does that mean that you want to throw children in jail for using matches?
- douche 11y ago
  > handing them a jug of meth But we're remarkably okay with doing this for people who have ADD/ADHD.
- drumdance 11y ago
  No one "gives" drugs or matches to anyone. They choose to try them, usually because someone shows them how. Do you want to outlaw matches?
- brazzledazzle 11y ago
  I know this is a serious subject but I'm having a good laugh about this supposed "jug of meth". We should also prevent people from injecting any more than 3 marijuanas, I've heard it can kill you.
- quaunaut 11y ago
  > This is like saying we'll give matches to children but build more fire stations. This is an awful analogy unless you're looking to prove my point. You can't possibly outlaw matches- they have too many common-good uses, and regulating their use and trade would be impossible even if you somehow made the first person guaranteed to be qualified to have one. Prescription drugs are exactly the same way- and furthermore, short of actually inspecting every inch of every person/vehicle that comes in the country(and keeping vigilant watch of everything else), there's no way to seriously crack down on it(which btw, this entirely violates America's constitution, and I bet several other countries would have similar problems). And even then, it wouldn't work, because how do we keep someone from giving it to a family member, or a friend? And how do we keep them from giving it to someone else? After all, even if the pain clinics are gone, that doesn't mean the abuse isn't happening. In my parent's case, they didn't go to a pain clinic- they had a dedicated physician prescribing it, one they had seen for years beforehand. So we've got something that so far hasn't worked to the tune of billions and billions of dollars, would cost exponentially more money to do significantly better while also eroding basic human rights, then finally still won't completely solve the problem. Or we just spend less money, not completely screw up the very concept of human rights, and clean up the mess leftover from the fact that people are human. --- And hell, this is all assuming we even know of every drug that'll ever be created, which is obviously not true. So what happens when the next "crushing cold medication together in a bowl to get high" happens? Somehow do a check on all of those things, or simply let them go to the already set-up facility that exists to handle said problem?

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

This is like saying we'll give matches to children but build more fire stations. Just getting addicted is social harm and hard to recover from. Most addicts claims its a daily fight for the rest of their lives. I don't think millions (billions?) of dollars pushed into rehab programs are remotely as effective as trying to keep it out of the hands of would-be users. Also, it makes more sense to address the mental issues addicts might be trying to self-medicate for instead of handing them a jug of meth and telling them to go have a good time. >quite some time is prescription drugs I imagine as we continue crack down on bullshit "pain clinics" this stuff is going to go way down. We're already seeing it Florida and elsewhere as legislation is catching up to corrupt doctors. I don't know why people make this sounds like its a given and will never change. The recent rise of prescription opiate abuse is well know and is being reigned back in.

ahoy 11y ago
No, it's like saying "These adults already have matches. Lets stop locking them up for having matches."
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>I don't think millions (billions?) of dollars pushed into rehab programs are remotely as effective as trying to keep it out of the hands of would-be users. Considering the effectiveness of prohibition is a rounding error away from 0, it wouldn't take much for rehabilitation to be better.
eyeinthepyramid 11y ago
> This is like saying we'll give matches to children but build more fire stations. By that analogy, does that mean that you want to throw children in jail for using matches?
douche 11y ago
> handing them a jug of meth But we're remarkably okay with doing this for people who have ADD/ADHD.
drumdance 11y ago
No one "gives" drugs or matches to anyone. They choose to try them, usually because someone shows them how. Do you want to outlaw matches?
brazzledazzle 11y ago
I know this is a serious subject but I'm having a good laugh about this supposed "jug of meth". We should also prevent people from injecting any more than 3 marijuanas, I've heard it can kill you.
quaunaut 11y ago
> This is like saying we'll give matches to children but build more fire stations. This is an awful analogy unless you're looking to prove my point. You can't possibly outlaw matches- they have too many common-good uses, and regulating their use and trade would be impossible even if you somehow made the first person guaranteed to be qualified to have one. Prescription drugs are exactly the same way- and furthermore, short of actually inspecting every inch of every person/vehicle that comes in the country(and keeping vigilant watch of everything else), there's no way to seriously crack down on it(which btw, this entirely violates America's constitution, and I bet several other countries would have similar problems). And even then, it wouldn't work, because how do we keep someone from giving it to a family member, or a friend? And how do we keep them from giving it to someone else? After all, even if the pain clinics are gone, that doesn't mean the abuse isn't happening. In my parent's case, they didn't go to a pain clinic- they had a dedicated physician prescribing it, one they had seen for years beforehand. So we've got something that so far hasn't worked to the tune of billions and billions of dollars, would cost exponentially more money to do significantly better while also eroding basic human rights, then finally still won't completely solve the problem. Or we just spend less money, not completely screw up the very concept of human rights, and clean up the mess leftover from the fact that people are human. --- And hell, this is all assuming we even know of every drug that'll ever be created, which is obviously not true. So what happens when the next "crushing cold medication together in a bowl to get high" happens? Somehow do a check on all of those things, or simply let them go to the already set-up facility that exists to handle said problem?