6 ms·

Because your addiction is also your wife's problem, your parent's problem, your company's problem. Addiction affects more than just the addict. And addicts are

Because your addiction is also your wife's problem, your parent's problem, your company's problem. Addiction affects more than just the addict. And addicts are in need of help - while it is easy to think that "they like being high, it's their choice", in fact the addicts hate their habit more than anything, yet they can't stop using without external help. Would you help a person with a broken leg ? Why ? Well, that's your answer right there. Edit: Just a couple of days ago I've watched this documentary and I guess that's how I came to these conclusions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k01VM1f1Akk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k01VM1f1Akk

oxide 11y ago
illegal drugs encourage abuse and addiction, not the other way around.
atom-morgan 11y ago
You could realistically make a case that someone's addiction, like nearly any other choice, affects everyone to some extent.
- cornstalks 11y ago
  I don't want to jump in this debate, but I want to point out that that's the opposite argument that many people use for trying to get drugs legalized: "It's not hurting/affecting anyone else besides me; why do people care that I want to use drug X/Y/Z in my home in my personal time?" I hope people don't argue that drugs should be legalized because it's a personal life choice that doesn't affect anyone else, and then turn around and argue that more support for addicts is needed because their personal issues do affect others. I know your comment doesn't have this logical contradiction, but I wanted to point this out in case any readers read your comment and silently nod their heads in agreement despite them also holding onto an obviously contradictory opinion.
  - jkestner 11y ago
    Life is full of contradictions. If we have evidence that legalizing drugs and increasing support for addicts works for society (see: Portugal), who cares about ideologically pure arguments?
rubicon33 11y ago
If they broke their leg while doing something that endangered not only themself, but their family, their friends, and society on a whole, I might not jump at an opportunity to help them.
- j2bax 11y ago
  Personally I don't consider myself such a good judge. If someone's in need, I like to think I will help them in whatever capacity I can. Many things lead to people making bad decisions, and they aren't all internal 1-sided factors.
  - rubicon33 11y ago
    I guess that's where we disagree. I do consider myself a good judge. If you don't feel you have a sharp rational thought, an ability to consider a wide range of factors, including a dose of fair human compassion, then yes you probably should just help out everyone by default. That's a good default position to take, and one I do commend. Myself on the other hand, I believe in my own ability to be fair in judgement, to straddle that difficult line between compassion and personal responsibility. I believe it IS possible to leave someone bleeding in the street because they chose to endanger themself, their family, their community, and the quality of life of everyone on this planet. That's a position that will strike many as arrogant, entitled, and downright wrong. I can understand that position, and still choose to disagree with it. As an ideal, I hold personal responsibility in the highest regard, while still understanding that life hits you hard sometimes in ways you cant possible predict.
    - vectorjohn 11y ago
      It's not just arrogant and cruel, it's also logically inconsistent. Everything libertarian leads to an everyone for themselves hellscape. But this in particular would indicate you shouldn't help someone in a car accident because of driving in bad weather, or really driving at all. They took the risk, the risk was well known, so screw them while they bleed to death in the car, right?
MichaelGG 11y ago
Not all addicts are in need of help. And many addicts really do enjoy being high or otherwise find opiates help them through life, work, etc. and do not want to quit. And out of those that do want to quit, I'd bet a large amount of it is due to the high prices the legal scheme enforces. With reasonable prices, the biggest issue with being an opiate user disappears.
- Tenhundfeld 11y ago
  We should probably make a distinction between users and addicts. Not all users of drugs, even opiates, are physiologically or psychologically dependent on that drug, i.e., addicted. Of course addicts enjoy being high. I'd wager essentially all addicts enjoy the high, even if the joy is just the abatement of withdrawal symptoms. And while some addicts don't want to "quit", that's true, a vanishingly small percentage enjoy being addicted. In my reading and limited first-hand discussions, even those addicts who don't want to quit still wish they could "cut back", e.g., wish they could just be a social drinker or only shoot heroin on the weekends. They hate the powerlessness they feel, hate the control the substance has over their lives. Lastly, I don't have hard evidence to back this up, but I've never read/heard an addict cite the high price of their drug being the biggest reason to quit. The biggest reason they want to quit is typically either its impact on their health or its impact on their relationships (or career, which is basically a relationship). I'm not saying you're irrefutably wrong about this; it just doesn't match my anecdotal experiences. The one thing all addicts share is an expert ability to obtain and use their substance. If it is physically possible to get their fix, they will find a way. Also, illegal drugs are often cheaper than legal ones, because regulatory compliance and taxes add more expense than operating in a black market. At least, that's the evidence coming out of states and countries that have recently legalized certain drugs.
  - MichaelGG 11y ago
    By price I mean both price and accessibility/legality. Getting medicine seems to be a huge time waste. It also leads to the worst stereotype, the thieving-"will do anything"-junkie. Legal morphine is already extremely affordable, about $1/gram.
nikdaheratik 11y ago
>Because your addiction is also your wife's problem, your parent's problem, your company's problem. Or your children's problem in the case of one of my close relatives. Addicts do stupid stuff, they don't have any money because they spend all of it on drugs. They then aren't able to pay for things like rent, food, diapers, etc. and turn to family or theft (or both) to deal with that problem. They don't take care of themselves or their dependents because they don't care. Is some of this exacerbated by the Drug War? Yes. But the other side of the coin is that making drugs cheaper/better and then decriminalizing it won't solve the problems (including depression and other mental issues) that cause people to turn to drugs in the first place. And then from there, they get addicted, drop out, and become a useless drain. The Drug War doesn't really work, and it causes liberty issues. But it's not the recreational users that are the big social problem with drugs. Its generally the people who are already down in life and then turn into addicts and make things even worse for themselves. And legalizing them won't fix that either. And then there's the whole issue with people who are in a terrible social/economic situation and sell/move drugs to make money but don't care about the product. They're not going to just start becoming model citizens working in the fancy new MJ dispensary because it's legal now. They'll find something else to do that's probably also illegal.
- over 11y ago
  In an ideal world, vice (sex, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, gambling, gaming, other?) profits could be funneled into addiction research, education, and treatment. But I don't really have any hope that this will materialize, especially not with private industry calling the shots.
  - anonaoeu 11y ago
    Not only vice profits - we could also funnel the 10s (100s?) of billions spent on the drug war each year into the same.

oxide 11y ago

illegal drugs encourage abuse and addiction, not the other way around.

atom-morgan 11y ago

You could realistically make a case that someone's addiction, like nearly any other choice, affects everyone to some extent.

cornstalks 11y ago
I don't want to jump in this debate, but I want to point out that that's the opposite argument that many people use for trying to get drugs legalized: "It's not hurting/affecting anyone else besides me; why do people care that I want to use drug X/Y/Z in my home in my personal time?" I hope people don't argue that drugs should be legalized because it's a personal life choice that doesn't affect anyone else, and then turn around and argue that more support for addicts is needed because their personal issues do affect others. I know your comment doesn't have this logical contradiction, but I wanted to point this out in case any readers read your comment and silently nod their heads in agreement despite them also holding onto an obviously contradictory opinion.
- jkestner 11y ago
  Life is full of contradictions. If we have evidence that legalizing drugs and increasing support for addicts works for society (see: Portugal), who cares about ideologically pure arguments?

rubicon33 11y ago

If they broke their leg while doing something that endangered not only themself, but their family, their friends, and society on a whole, I might not jump at an opportunity to help them.

j2bax 11y ago
Personally I don't consider myself such a good judge. If someone's in need, I like to think I will help them in whatever capacity I can. Many things lead to people making bad decisions, and they aren't all internal 1-sided factors.
- rubicon33 11y ago
  I guess that's where we disagree. I do consider myself a good judge. If you don't feel you have a sharp rational thought, an ability to consider a wide range of factors, including a dose of fair human compassion, then yes you probably should just help out everyone by default. That's a good default position to take, and one I do commend. Myself on the other hand, I believe in my own ability to be fair in judgement, to straddle that difficult line between compassion and personal responsibility. I believe it IS possible to leave someone bleeding in the street because they chose to endanger themself, their family, their community, and the quality of life of everyone on this planet. That's a position that will strike many as arrogant, entitled, and downright wrong. I can understand that position, and still choose to disagree with it. As an ideal, I hold personal responsibility in the highest regard, while still understanding that life hits you hard sometimes in ways you cant possible predict.
  - vectorjohn 11y ago
    It's not just arrogant and cruel, it's also logically inconsistent. Everything libertarian leads to an everyone for themselves hellscape. But this in particular would indicate you shouldn't help someone in a car accident because of driving in bad weather, or really driving at all. They took the risk, the risk was well known, so screw them while they bleed to death in the car, right?

MichaelGG 11y ago

Not all addicts are in need of help. And many addicts really do enjoy being high or otherwise find opiates help them through life, work, etc. and do not want to quit. And out of those that do want to quit, I'd bet a large amount of it is due to the high prices the legal scheme enforces. With reasonable prices, the biggest issue with being an opiate user disappears.

Tenhundfeld 11y ago
We should probably make a distinction between users and addicts. Not all users of drugs, even opiates, are physiologically or psychologically dependent on that drug, i.e., addicted. Of course addicts enjoy being high. I'd wager essentially all addicts enjoy the high, even if the joy is just the abatement of withdrawal symptoms. And while some addicts don't want to "quit", that's true, a vanishingly small percentage enjoy being addicted. In my reading and limited first-hand discussions, even those addicts who don't want to quit still wish they could "cut back", e.g., wish they could just be a social drinker or only shoot heroin on the weekends. They hate the powerlessness they feel, hate the control the substance has over their lives. Lastly, I don't have hard evidence to back this up, but I've never read/heard an addict cite the high price of their drug being the biggest reason to quit. The biggest reason they want to quit is typically either its impact on their health or its impact on their relationships (or career, which is basically a relationship). I'm not saying you're irrefutably wrong about this; it just doesn't match my anecdotal experiences. The one thing all addicts share is an expert ability to obtain and use their substance. If it is physically possible to get their fix, they will find a way. Also, illegal drugs are often cheaper than legal ones, because regulatory compliance and taxes add more expense than operating in a black market. At least, that's the evidence coming out of states and countries that have recently legalized certain drugs.
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  By price I mean both price and accessibility/legality. Getting medicine seems to be a huge time waste. It also leads to the worst stereotype, the thieving-"will do anything"-junkie. Legal morphine is already extremely affordable, about $1/gram.

nikdaheratik 11y ago

>Because your addiction is also your wife's problem, your parent's problem, your company's problem. Or your children's problem in the case of one of my close relatives. Addicts do stupid stuff, they don't have any money because they spend all of it on drugs. They then aren't able to pay for things like rent, food, diapers, etc. and turn to family or theft (or both) to deal with that problem. They don't take care of themselves or their dependents because they don't care. Is some of this exacerbated by the Drug War? Yes. But the other side of the coin is that making drugs cheaper/better and then decriminalizing it won't solve the problems (including depression and other mental issues) that cause people to turn to drugs in the first place. And then from there, they get addicted, drop out, and become a useless drain. The Drug War doesn't really work, and it causes liberty issues. But it's not the recreational users that are the big social problem with drugs. Its generally the people who are already down in life and then turn into addicts and make things even worse for themselves. And legalizing them won't fix that either. And then there's the whole issue with people who are in a terrible social/economic situation and sell/move drugs to make money but don't care about the product. They're not going to just start becoming model citizens working in the fancy new MJ dispensary because it's legal now. They'll find something else to do that's probably also illegal.

over 11y ago
In an ideal world, vice (sex, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, gambling, gaming, other?) profits could be funneled into addiction research, education, and treatment. But I don't really have any hope that this will materialize, especially not with private industry calling the shots.
- anonaoeu 11y ago
  Not only vice profits - we could also funnel the 10s (100s?) of billions spent on the drug war each year into the same.