5 ms·

I realize it's a popular sentiment here, but it's based off of a philosophy that isn't universal and that reasonable people can disagree on. When you consider

I realize it's a popular sentiment here, but it's based off of a philosophy that isn't universal and that reasonable people can disagree on. When you consider that some drugs are physically addictive and that some people are more susceptible to the addiction, there's a societal incentive to protect people from the opportunity to become addicted. I get that to some people that is a "nanny state", but I also think that the belief that "every man for himself" scales to a population size of n is overly simplistic.

icebraining 13y ago
Allowing people to put whatever they want in their bodies and "every man for himself" is a false dichotomy. The idea is to focus more on helping instead of beating the people who are addicted, which is what criminalization of usage does.
eatitraw 13y ago
Why do you equate physical force and prohibition to helping people? Why not start a private fund/charity, which, for example, helps addicts beat their habits? Or maybe distribute accurate information about drugs and drugs-related programs? Coercion isn't the only way to help people. And absence of coercion isn't "every man for himself"
- sfjailbird 13y ago
  It's clear that drugs are destroying people and communities. Take crack as an example. Do you really think making it freely available, or providing free soup kitchens and mecical aid, would alleviate the misery and destruction it causes to people and communities? Sometimes people need to be protected against themselves, this is particularly true for the less educated (which tends to coincide with the underpriviledged), because they will seriously fuck up their lives (which in turn affects their dependants and communities) unless provided guidance and, yes, certain restrictions.
  - mvanvoorden 13y ago
    Why would anyone still be using (street) crack when the pure and safe alternative is there to use when drugs are no longer illegal? People don't need to be protected against themselves. That's exactly what makes people not being able to care for themselves. Prohibition usually means no awareness is being raised about the risks or effects of a certain drug. We get raised with the idea that drugs are bad and awful, that all of them are highly addictive and super deadly. Except for alcohol of course, please drink as much as you like, it's safe. This scare campaign works for most of us, but not for the lucky few who are curious and try it anyway. Guess what? They find out it's not bad, awful, deadly or addictive at all, but of course most of them are, still ignorant of all the other details of the drugs they used. So this first time drug user tells his friends that drugs aren't so bad at all. Some friends will probably try it as well. If this concerns weed or mdma, this is not really a problem. These are safe to use, hard to overdose, make you a social human being and they are not (physically) addictive, but it might just as easy be cocaine, speed (meth), lsd or shrooms. The first two are addictive, bad for your body and brain and cocaine changes most people into irritating macho men while prolonged use of speed can make one paranoid. The latter two are psychedelics. These can be dangerous if you don't know what you're doing. These drugs open your mind, makes you realize things you never really thought about before and confronts you with unprocessed experiences or trauma's you may have, which can be quite scary, especially if you don't expect it. Imagine your friend had a super duper happy lsd trip and recommends this to his depressed friend. Chances are high that he will go 'bad' resulting in psychosis. On the other hand, he might suddenly see the light and find out how he can get out of his depression. If drugs were legal and awareness about their pro's, cons and dangers is being raised, more people will be encouraged to do some reading before they use something or at least the friend who brings the drugs knows what he's carrying and what the effects are. People only need to be protected for misinformation, by informing them with facts instead of fear, uncertainty and doubt. Informed people make less (stupid) mistakes, and no one should be protected against themselves. If you die because of ignorance in an informed society, it's your own effing fault. Drugs don't destroy people and communities, misinformation and ignorance does.
    - sfjailbird 13y ago
eightyone 13y ago
There are plenty of things that are physically addictive and still legal: caffeine, alcohol, cigarettes and a cornucopia of various pharmaceuticals (both prescription and over the counter). Also, there are an abundance of illegal drugs that aren't physically addictive such as LSD [1], psilocybin mushrooms [2], DMT [3], mescaline [4], or MDMA [5]. So that's a pretty bad argument. I've not once said I have an "every man for himself" belief system. From your language, it seems that your may be assuming I'm a libertarian. I'm not. Not that it matters if I was because there's a solid case to be made against prohibition. Honestly that doesn't even make any sense in this context. We should give people unbiased information and let them make their own decisions. Society has no place telling me or anyone else what they can put in their body. Just like we do a wide variety of other things we consume and make use of daily. Should we take acetaminophen (Tylenol) off the market because 500 people per year overdose and die from it? [13] How about caffeine? That kills people too and is physically addictive. Should we go back to prohibiting alcohol, which kills 75,000 people per year in the United States alone? [14] How about tobacco which kills 5 million people per year? [15] What about all the research chemicals that no one knows the side effects of because they haven't been studied like the more popular drugs? They get banned and all you have to do is change a couple molecules and it's a new drug. heroin deaths are a pimple compared to alcohol deaths, a couple thousand per year most. And how much of that is because of a dealer who gave bad, impure product to a customer that required them to shoot up a ton to get a high? Who knows. I'm going to preemptively stop you. Don't you dare say that if heroin was legal that significantly more people would die from it. No one wakes up one day and says, "Gee I think I'd like to buy some China white heroin." If something like Naloxone, which is a drug used in hospitals as a counter to heroin and other opiate related overdoes was allowed to be sold everywhere I'm sure you would see that number go down, as well. [18] The drug war is a colossal failure that has done nothing but contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (most likely millions worldwide, but I don't have stat for that.) and ripped families a part. In Mexico alone between 2006 and 2012 drug related violence hit 60,00 deaths. That's in Mexico alone in only a few years. [6] as well as make a select few richer. Statistics show that it disproportionately effects those in the African-American community. [7] You obviously haven't seen your father ripped from your arms for possessing an ounce of weed, a sheet of acid, or a couple grams of cocaine. History is a major indicator that the war on drugs is not going to get better. It's only going to get worse. Legalize and regulate drugs and you will see crime go down across the board. Not to mention that you can then control the quality of drugs. When you can produce heroin in a grade a chemical facility and not some guys shed you can make a drastically healthier product. You're making the assertion that making drugs illegal makes them go away. Simple put: that's false. People who are physically addicted to drugs such as heroin can't seek out help as it currently lies because they are treated as criminals if they relapse and are sent to prison. Portugal decriminalized a wide array of drugs including heroin, LSD, marijuana, and cocaine and they saw: - More people opted to seek out treatment for their drug problems [8] - Reduction in HIV among drug users by 17% [9] - Drug use among adolescents declined [10] - Decreased value of street drugs [11] For more see See Drug Decriminalization in Portugal by Glenn Greenwald [6] Further more I want to touch on the fact that the way scheduling is handled in the United States, several important drugs are kept from being studied by scientists in universities. That is absolutely ridiculous. Drugs like MDMA are going to pave the way in treating things like depression and PTSD. [16] LSD has been known to help alcoholics see the light and give it up. [17] Marinol, a synthetic form of THC that costs thousands of percents more than the price of marijuana, is allowed to be prescribed and sold, but marijuana is illegal. That's messed up. You're way of thinking is dangerous and is irrational and your certainty not being reasonable. [1] http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_basics.shtml http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_basics.shtml [2] http://brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/alcohol,_tobacco,_&_other_drugs/psilocybin.php#6 http://brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Edu... [3] http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dmt/dmt_basics.shtml http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dmt/dmt_basics.shtml [4] http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mescaline/mescaline_basics.shtml http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mescaline/mescaline_basics.s... [5] http://www.dartmouth.edu/~healthed/groups/dapa/otherdrugs/mdma.html http://www.dartmouth.edu/~healthed/groups/dapa/otherdrugs/md... [6] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10681249 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10681249 [7] http://newjimcrow.com/ http://newjimcrow.com/ [8] http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/bib/doc/bf/2007_Caitlin_211672_1.pdf http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/bib/doc/bf/2007_Caitlin_211... [9] http://www.idt.pt/PT/IDT/Documents/Ponto_Focal/2009_NationalReport.pdf http://www.idt.pt/PT/IDT/Documents/Ponto_Focal/2009_National... [10] http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/bib/doc/bf/2010_Caitlin_211621_1.pdf http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/bib/doc/bf/2010_Caitlin_211... [11] http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/bib/doc/bf/2010_Caitlin_211621_1.pdf http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/bib/doc/bf/2010_Caitlin_211... [12] http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/greenwald_... [13] http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/ucm239821.htm http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/ucm239821.htm [14] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alc... [15] http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/ http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_... [16] http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/dec/27/mdma-ecstasy-post-traumatic-stress-disorder http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/dec/27/mdma-ecstasy-p... [17] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17297714 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17297714 [18] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naloxone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naloxone Edit: Some formatting and thanks to klearvue for bringing a prevalent spelling error to my attention. Sometimes I get ahead of myself.

icebraining 13y ago

Allowing people to put whatever they want in their bodies and "every man for himself" is a false dichotomy. The idea is to focus more on helping instead of beating the people who are addicted, which is what criminalization of usage does.

eatitraw 13y ago

Why do you equate physical force and prohibition to helping people? Why not start a private fund/charity, which, for example, helps addicts beat their habits? Or maybe distribute accurate information about drugs and drugs-related programs? Coercion isn't the only way to help people. And absence of coercion isn't "every man for himself"

sfjailbird 13y ago
It's clear that drugs are destroying people and communities. Take crack as an example. Do you really think making it freely available, or providing free soup kitchens and mecical aid, would alleviate the misery and destruction it causes to people and communities? Sometimes people need to be protected against themselves, this is particularly true for the less educated (which tends to coincide with the underpriviledged), because they will seriously fuck up their lives (which in turn affects their dependants and communities) unless provided guidance and, yes, certain restrictions.
- mvanvoorden 13y ago
  Why would anyone still be using (street) crack when the pure and safe alternative is there to use when drugs are no longer illegal? People don't need to be protected against themselves. That's exactly what makes people not being able to care for themselves. Prohibition usually means no awareness is being raised about the risks or effects of a certain drug. We get raised with the idea that drugs are bad and awful, that all of them are highly addictive and super deadly. Except for alcohol of course, please drink as much as you like, it's safe. This scare campaign works for most of us, but not for the lucky few who are curious and try it anyway. Guess what? They find out it's not bad, awful, deadly or addictive at all, but of course most of them are, still ignorant of all the other details of the drugs they used. So this first time drug user tells his friends that drugs aren't so bad at all. Some friends will probably try it as well. If this concerns weed or mdma, this is not really a problem. These are safe to use, hard to overdose, make you a social human being and they are not (physically) addictive, but it might just as easy be cocaine, speed (meth), lsd or shrooms. The first two are addictive, bad for your body and brain and cocaine changes most people into irritating macho men while prolonged use of speed can make one paranoid. The latter two are psychedelics. These can be dangerous if you don't know what you're doing. These drugs open your mind, makes you realize things you never really thought about before and confronts you with unprocessed experiences or trauma's you may have, which can be quite scary, especially if you don't expect it. Imagine your friend had a super duper happy lsd trip and recommends this to his depressed friend. Chances are high that he will go 'bad' resulting in psychosis. On the other hand, he might suddenly see the light and find out how he can get out of his depression. If drugs were legal and awareness about their pro's, cons and dangers is being raised, more people will be encouraged to do some reading before they use something or at least the friend who brings the drugs knows what he's carrying and what the effects are. People only need to be protected for misinformation, by informing them with facts instead of fear, uncertainty and doubt. Informed people make less (stupid) mistakes, and no one should be protected against themselves. If you die because of ignorance in an informed society, it's your own effing fault. Drugs don't destroy people and communities, misinformation and ignorance does.
  - sfjailbird 13y ago

eightyone 13y ago

There are plenty of things that are physically addictive and still legal: caffeine, alcohol, cigarettes and a cornucopia of various pharmaceuticals (both prescription and over the counter). Also, there are an abundance of illegal drugs that aren't physically addictive such as LSD [1], psilocybin mushrooms [2], DMT [3], mescaline [4], or MDMA [5]. So that's a pretty bad argument. I've not once said I have an "every man for himself" belief system. From your language, it seems that your may be assuming I'm a libertarian. I'm not. Not that it matters if I was because there's a solid case to be made against prohibition. Honestly that doesn't even make any sense in this context. We should give people unbiased information and let them make their own decisions. Society has no place telling me or anyone else what they can put in their body. Just like we do a wide variety of other things we consume and make use of daily. Should we take acetaminophen (Tylenol) off the market because 500 people per year overdose and die from it? [13] How about caffeine? That kills people too and is physically addictive. Should we go back to prohibiting alcohol, which kills 75,000 people per year in the United States alone? [14] How about tobacco which kills 5 million people per year? [15] What about all the research chemicals that no one knows the side effects of because they haven't been studied like the more popular drugs? They get banned and all you have to do is change a couple molecules and it's a new drug. heroin deaths are a pimple compared to alcohol deaths, a couple thousand per year most. And how much of that is because of a dealer who gave bad, impure product to a customer that required them to shoot up a ton to get a high? Who knows. I'm going to preemptively stop you. Don't you dare say that if heroin was legal that significantly more people would die from it. No one wakes up one day and says, "Gee I think I'd like to buy some China white heroin." If something like Naloxone, which is a drug used in hospitals as a counter to heroin and other opiate related overdoes was allowed to be sold everywhere I'm sure you would see that number go down, as well. [18] The drug war is a colossal failure that has done nothing but contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (most likely millions worldwide, but I don't have stat for that.) and ripped families a part. In Mexico alone between 2006 and 2012 drug related violence hit 60,00 deaths. That's in Mexico alone in only a few years. [6] as well as make a select few richer. Statistics show that it disproportionately effects those in the African-American community. [7] You obviously haven't seen your father ripped from your arms for possessing an ounce of weed, a sheet of acid, or a couple grams of cocaine. History is a major indicator that the war on drugs is not going to get better. It's only going to get worse. Legalize and regulate drugs and you will see crime go down across the board. Not to mention that you can then control the quality of drugs. When you can produce heroin in a grade a chemical facility and not some guys shed you can make a drastically healthier product. You're making the assertion that making drugs illegal makes them go away. Simple put: that's false. People who are physically addicted to drugs such as heroin can't seek out help as it currently lies because they are treated as criminals if they relapse and are sent to prison. Portugal decriminalized a wide array of drugs including heroin, LSD, marijuana, and cocaine and they saw: - More people opted to seek out treatment for their drug problems [8] - Reduction in HIV among drug users by 17% [9] - Drug use among adolescents declined [10] - Decreased value of street drugs [11] For more see See Drug Decriminalization in Portugal by Glenn Greenwald [6] Further more I want to touch on the fact that the way scheduling is handled in the United States, several important drugs are kept from being studied by scientists in universities. That is absolutely ridiculous. Drugs like MDMA are going to pave the way in treating things like depression and PTSD. [16] LSD has been known to help alcoholics see the light and give it up. [17] Marinol, a synthetic form of THC that costs thousands of percents more than the price of marijuana, is allowed to be prescribed and sold, but marijuana is illegal. That's messed up. You're way of thinking is dangerous and is irrational and your certainty not being reasonable. [1] http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_basics.shtml http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_basics.shtml [2] http://brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/alcohol,_tobacco,_&_other_drugs/psilocybin.php#6 http://brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Edu... [3] http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dmt/dmt_basics.shtml http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dmt/dmt_basics.shtml [4] http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mescaline/mescaline_basics.shtml http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mescaline/mescaline_basics.s... [5] http://www.dartmouth.edu/~healthed/groups/dapa/otherdrugs/mdma.html http://www.dartmouth.edu/~healthed/groups/dapa/otherdrugs/md... [6] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10681249 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10681249 [7] http://newjimcrow.com/ http://newjimcrow.com/ [8] http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/bib/doc/bf/2007_Caitlin_211672_1.pdf http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/bib/doc/bf/2007_Caitlin_211... [9] http://www.idt.pt/PT/IDT/Documents/Ponto_Focal/2009_NationalReport.pdf http://www.idt.pt/PT/IDT/Documents/Ponto_Focal/2009_National... [10] http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/bib/doc/bf/2010_Caitlin_211621_1.pdf http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/bib/doc/bf/2010_Caitlin_211... [11] http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/bib/doc/bf/2010_Caitlin_211621_1.pdf http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/bib/doc/bf/2010_Caitlin_211... [12] http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/greenwald_... [13] http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/ucm239821.htm http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/ucm239821.htm [14] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alc... [15] http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/ http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_... [16] http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/dec/27/mdma-ecstasy-post-traumatic-stress-disorder http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/dec/27/mdma-ecstasy-p... [17] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17297714 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17297714 [18] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naloxone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naloxone Edit: Some formatting and thanks to klearvue for bringing a prevalent spelling error to my attention. Sometimes I get ahead of myself.