4 ms·

until you see the many lives destroyed by drugs. from mothers abandoning their children, to ending up homeless and alone, to deaths and murders. Sure he's just

by ed209 13y ago

until you see the many lives destroyed by drugs. from mothers abandoning their children, to ending up homeless and alone, to deaths and murders. Sure he's just one cog in a giant machine, but he's also responsible for death and hardship as a result of the drugs he moved. Society in general also carries some of the responsibility, as do those involved in his upbringing. But I know that if my child came to any harm as a result of the drugs he supplied for his own profit I'd want him to be behind bars for that long - or until he was rehabilitated. "In 2004, 17% of U.S. State prisoners and 18% of Federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug-related_crime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug-related_crime

WA 13y ago
You make it sound like your children don't have a choice whether to take drugs or not. You could argue similarly by replacing drugs with anything (legal) that could harm your children. For example, do you blame motorcycle vendors for being responsible for deaths and hardship among the families of motorcyclists? Drugs and motorcycles are certainly different, but it's a bit too easy to blame drug traffickers or dealers only without taking into consideration the parents and the social circle of the children.
- mike_esspe 13y ago
  In modern society it is implied, that person taking drugs is losing their free will and requires guardianship. Whether it is scientifically correct is a question.
  - mynameisvlad 13y ago
    Doesn't change the fact that the person, in most cases, had to make a choice to start taking the drugs. It's not as if you wake up one day, and you're now instantly addicted to cocaine and are destroying your life. You had to make the choice to start using the drugs.
    - gijjk 13y ago
      All people make small mistakes all the time, and usually can recover. Few of them involve falling into an abyss, but tasting meth or heroin or maybe crack are among them.
      - mynameisvlad 13y ago
        It's not like the second you've had meth or heroin for the first time you're instantly and irrevocably addicted to it. There's definitely an ability to recover from that.
  - ef4 13y ago
    > In modern society it is implied, that person taking drugs is losing their free will If that was really true, we wouldn't hold them criminally responsible for their actions.
- ed209 13y ago
  Unlike recreational drugs, motorcycles are a useful tool that enables society to go about its business. Knives also enable me to prepare dinner and surgeons to remove my appendix. I don't think that class A drugs carry the same risk/benefit ratio, do you? Also, I think you missed the part where I said that society and family carry some of the responsibility for that child taking drugs, but then you were too busy arguing the point you wanted to make rather than actually tackling what I said directly.
  - ferrouswheel 13y ago
    Class A drugs actually have a range of benefits, from curing addiction(!), depression, PTSD, migraines, and inspiring people creatively. This is not for all drugs, and some also have associated risks, but they are not by nature "bad". Unfortunately, these drugs often are unpatentable, so it's safer to make them illegal (class A so that law says they "have no medical purpose"). Then big pharma can find less effective substances, sell them for more, and it's all under the guise of safety.
crag 13y ago
"until you see the many lives destroyed by drugs. from mothers abandoning their children, to ending up homeless and alone, to deaths and murders." And we'd have a hella better handle on it it it were legal. Right now, I can drink myself to death; or get piss-end drunk and smack my partner around; or get piss-end drunk again, hit a ball game and start a fight in the stands - none of these actions would gain me 25 years in jail (though I'd be dead cause my partner would shoot me - and rightly so. :) ). I can smoke cigarettes which has had one purpose - to addict me (oh and kill me in the process) but I can't smoke a joint in my own home without running a risk that some a-hole walking by will smell the pot and call the cops. Utterly ridiculous.
- ed209 13y ago
  Cigarettes would not be legal if they were invented today. I've seen first hand what years of pot smoking does to people, it's not worth it. Drinking to excess is a growing problem and one that should be tackled. I can't really understand what point you're making, is it that you think class A drugs should be legalised?
  - crag 13y ago
    Yes. All drugs should be legal. What I do in my own house to my own body is my business. Not to mention, most of the violence caused by the illegal drug trade wouldn't exist. My point is, in America it's legal for me to smoke cigarettes, carry weapons of mass destruction in my pocket, drink liquor (anywhere I please) but it's not legal for me to smoke a joint. That's my point.
    - ed209 13y ago
      and my point is that smoking should not be legal, carrying weapons should not be legal, pot should not be legal. Drinking is difficult because there are reported health benefits as well and most of the world does not drink to excess. You may think that doing those things in your own home, with your own body is nobody's business but yours. That, however, is naive. Let's say you overdose on cocaine or you get lung cancer from smoking, that is not a burden only you will carry, that is a burden on society. Money spent on your treatment could be better spent elsewhere. This isn't about personal freedoms, it's about being a responsible member of society and unfortunately talking about it on the personal scale is totally different to talking about it on a national scale.
coldtea 13y ago
>until you see the many lives destroyed by drugs. from mothers abandoning their children, to ending up homeless and alone, to deaths and murders. Until you realize that most of those destroyed lives are because drugs are illegal in the first place, which makes them: 1) expensive, 2) reason to get fired, 3) of unknown quality and ratios (hence overdosing), 4) related to gangs and violent crime, etc etc.
gnosis 13y ago
And how many lives and families have been destroyed by imprisoning or killing people involved in using or selling drugs? There is a very strong case to be made for the War on Drugs being far, far more harmful to society than drug use itself has ever been.
- ed209 13y ago
  Please, give some details on that case, I'd be interested to read more.
zalew 13y ago
> until you see the many lives destroyed by drugs. from mothers abandoning their children, to ending up homeless and alone, to deaths and murders. luckily there are other fun and legal substances like alcohol that never cause such damage. oh, wait.
- ed209 13y ago
  your sarcastic point doesn't change the fact that drugs destroy lives. Alcohol also destroys lives, so thanks for pointing that out.
yoster 13y ago
The reason why federal inmates say they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs is because they get their sentence reduced for going to drug classes while incarcerated. For example, if you get arrested for a kilo of cocaine, you get a 5 year federal sentence. If you say you are a drug addict, and attend drug classes, you get 2 years of your sentence.

by ed209 13y ago

WA 13y ago

You make it sound like your children don't have a choice whether to take drugs or not. You could argue similarly by replacing drugs with anything (legal) that could harm your children. For example, do you blame motorcycle vendors for being responsible for deaths and hardship among the families of motorcyclists? Drugs and motorcycles are certainly different, but it's a bit too easy to blame drug traffickers or dealers only without taking into consideration the parents and the social circle of the children.

mike_esspe 13y ago
In modern society it is implied, that person taking drugs is losing their free will and requires guardianship. Whether it is scientifically correct is a question.
- mynameisvlad 13y ago
  Doesn't change the fact that the person, in most cases, had to make a choice to start taking the drugs. It's not as if you wake up one day, and you're now instantly addicted to cocaine and are destroying your life. You had to make the choice to start using the drugs.
  - gijjk 13y ago
    All people make small mistakes all the time, and usually can recover. Few of them involve falling into an abyss, but tasting meth or heroin or maybe crack are among them.
    - mynameisvlad 13y ago
      It's not like the second you've had meth or heroin for the first time you're instantly and irrevocably addicted to it. There's definitely an ability to recover from that.
- ef4 13y ago
  > In modern society it is implied, that person taking drugs is losing their free will If that was really true, we wouldn't hold them criminally responsible for their actions.
ed209 13y ago
Unlike recreational drugs, motorcycles are a useful tool that enables society to go about its business. Knives also enable me to prepare dinner and surgeons to remove my appendix. I don't think that class A drugs carry the same risk/benefit ratio, do you? Also, I think you missed the part where I said that society and family carry some of the responsibility for that child taking drugs, but then you were too busy arguing the point you wanted to make rather than actually tackling what I said directly.
- ferrouswheel 13y ago
  Class A drugs actually have a range of benefits, from curing addiction(!), depression, PTSD, migraines, and inspiring people creatively. This is not for all drugs, and some also have associated risks, but they are not by nature "bad". Unfortunately, these drugs often are unpatentable, so it's safer to make them illegal (class A so that law says they "have no medical purpose"). Then big pharma can find less effective substances, sell them for more, and it's all under the guise of safety.

crag 13y ago

"until you see the many lives destroyed by drugs. from mothers abandoning their children, to ending up homeless and alone, to deaths and murders." And we'd have a hella better handle on it it it were legal. Right now, I can drink myself to death; or get piss-end drunk and smack my partner around; or get piss-end drunk again, hit a ball game and start a fight in the stands - none of these actions would gain me 25 years in jail (though I'd be dead cause my partner would shoot me - and rightly so. :) ). I can smoke cigarettes which has had one purpose - to addict me (oh and kill me in the process) but I can't smoke a joint in my own home without running a risk that some a-hole walking by will smell the pot and call the cops. Utterly ridiculous.

ed209 13y ago
Cigarettes would not be legal if they were invented today. I've seen first hand what years of pot smoking does to people, it's not worth it. Drinking to excess is a growing problem and one that should be tackled. I can't really understand what point you're making, is it that you think class A drugs should be legalised?
- crag 13y ago
  Yes. All drugs should be legal. What I do in my own house to my own body is my business. Not to mention, most of the violence caused by the illegal drug trade wouldn't exist. My point is, in America it's legal for me to smoke cigarettes, carry weapons of mass destruction in my pocket, drink liquor (anywhere I please) but it's not legal for me to smoke a joint. That's my point.
  - ed209 13y ago
    and my point is that smoking should not be legal, carrying weapons should not be legal, pot should not be legal. Drinking is difficult because there are reported health benefits as well and most of the world does not drink to excess. You may think that doing those things in your own home, with your own body is nobody's business but yours. That, however, is naive. Let's say you overdose on cocaine or you get lung cancer from smoking, that is not a burden only you will carry, that is a burden on society. Money spent on your treatment could be better spent elsewhere. This isn't about personal freedoms, it's about being a responsible member of society and unfortunately talking about it on the personal scale is totally different to talking about it on a national scale.

coldtea 13y ago

>until you see the many lives destroyed by drugs. from mothers abandoning their children, to ending up homeless and alone, to deaths and murders. Until you realize that most of those destroyed lives are because drugs are illegal in the first place, which makes them: 1) expensive, 2) reason to get fired, 3) of unknown quality and ratios (hence overdosing), 4) related to gangs and violent crime, etc etc.

gnosis 13y ago

And how many lives and families have been destroyed by imprisoning or killing people involved in using or selling drugs? There is a very strong case to be made for the War on Drugs being far, far more harmful to society than drug use itself has ever been.

ed209 13y ago
Please, give some details on that case, I'd be interested to read more.

zalew 13y ago

> until you see the many lives destroyed by drugs. from mothers abandoning their children, to ending up homeless and alone, to deaths and murders. luckily there are other fun and legal substances like alcohol that never cause such damage. oh, wait.

ed209 13y ago
your sarcastic point doesn't change the fact that drugs destroy lives. Alcohol also destroys lives, so thanks for pointing that out.

yoster 13y ago

The reason why federal inmates say they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs is because they get their sentence reduced for going to drug classes while incarcerated. For example, if you get arrested for a kilo of cocaine, you get a 5 year federal sentence. If you say you are a drug addict, and attend drug classes, you get 2 years of your sentence.