5 ms·

I've got legal speed in my medicine cabinet that my doctor prescribed to me for ADHD. I also have legal opiates that my doctor prescribed for pain. I don't want

by pstuart 13y ago

I've got legal speed in my medicine cabinet that my doctor prescribed to me for ADHD. I also have legal opiates that my doctor prescribed for pain. I don't want or need your approval for what I put in my body. I also have a brother dead from a heroin overdose. It's illegal and it didn't stop him. Sanctimonious nanny staters like you think you're protecting people but you're just supporting organized crime, death and ruined lives by pushing this into the shadows.

steve19 13y ago
The fact that so many people mess themselves up on legal amphetamines and opiates is unfortunately why there is so much opposition to legalizing drugs. I don't care what you put in your body (legal or otherwise), its your body and your life and you are compelled to do so for reasons I might not understand, but if I found a loved one was taking a cocktail of amphetamines and opiates I would do everything in my power to see they got the help and support they needed to get off it. Legalizing amphetamines would trigger major societal problems. What percentage of HN would feel the need to consume it in order to compete at school, the office or the market. Nanny state? You make it sound so simple. Drugs are just chemicals. Why not say all chemicals should be legalized. What about RDX (a military-grade explosive)? Is the nanny state getting in the way of me having a good time on private property blowing stuff up? I can safely use military weapons, so why can't I purchase them privately?
- Crito 13y ago
  Ah yes, the good old "If you legalize drugs, next we'll be legalizing plastic explosives!" slippery-slope argume... wait what? That is one hell of a new one. You guys are getting more creative every day...
  - kristiandupont 13y ago
    That wasn't GP's argument at all.
    - Crito 13y ago
      His argument devolved into incoherency. What little of it survived, has already been addressed at considerable length.
- nate_meurer 13y ago
  Your last sentence is one big bait-and-switch. Your simple possession of RDX is an entirely different matter from "blowing stuff up". I can blow stuff up just as easily with ammonium nitrate (used by the ton for fertilizing farmland) and diesel. Both of those are legal, but perhaps you'd rather they not be? You know, just in case... The drug war has not criminalized harmful behavior caused by drugs. That would make far too much sense. The drug war criminalizes the mere possession of drugs, regardless of any actual harmful behavior. Then the nanny state corrects your behavior by giving you a criminal record.
  - vasilipupkin 13y ago
    If you make it easier and cheaper to purchase drugs by making it legal, it is natural to expect that more people would use and purchase them, on the margin. Is that what we want?
    - inDigiNeous 13y ago
      People are going to get wasted anyhow. Why not offer legal alternatives to alcohol (which just makes us stupid and dead) and tobacco. The only reason I see why cannabis is not legal yet is because it threatens the medical industry in a big way. Cannabis, although easily becomes an addiction, is also a big medicine for many things. When people start to realize this in big quantities, the medical companies are going to get worried, as their prescription drugs that may cause coma and death, will not be used so much anymore.
    - nate_meurer 13y ago
      Your question is bit of a non-sequitur, but any answer would have to depend on the drug in question. If we're talking about alcohol, then the rise in consumption is absolutely acceptable because 1.) those who abuse are now treated as addicts instead of imprisoned by default, and 2.) those who don't abuse it are now free from the horrors of capricious and arbitrary criminal persecution. Same goes for marijuana and tobacco (which is, in my meager experience, the most addictive drug of all). Now, if we're talking about meth or narcotics, then obviously any rise in consumption has to be taken very seriously, and then addressed by treating addicts medically as they should be, instead of sending them deeper underground by making them criminals.
- felipe 13y ago
  > Why not say all chemicals should be legalized. Very simple: Law enforcement protects individuals against the actions of other individuals, and not against themselves. Your loved one needs addiction treatment (i. e.: heathcare), and law enforcement will not solve his/her problem.
- throwaway420420 13y ago
  You are ignorant, have you ever been an addict? I doubt it, you've probably lived a safe life in your white middle-class bubble. If you think you could just convince a loved one to stop doing dope and crank with words, you're living in a fucking dream world. I speak from experience, having the disease of addiction. You are extremely naive, stop posting please.
  - andyhmltn 13y ago
    The exact same thing can be said for alcohol. A substance which I can go and buy from the corner store.
  - tomp 13y ago
    So throwing them in jail is your solution?
  - icebraining 13y ago
    As someone who has lived with an (heroine) addict, I can tell you that decriminalization was essential in getting him to treatment, but he did stop consuming (after a few restarts, and after hurting a lot of people around him). The months he spent in jail didn't help at all.
paulhauggis 13y ago
"I don't want or need your approval for what I put in my body." I agree. However, I shouldn't have to clean up the mess. IE: rocketing health care costs and social programs that come out of my tax dollars.
- slavak 13y ago
  The costs already come out of your tax dollars. Or did you think the massive anti-drug enforcement efforts and booming prison population are free?
- daveid 13y ago
  Well, would you rather those same tax dollars are spent on something that doesn't work with people not getting treatment, or on treatment for those same people that is likely to work?
- Nursie 13y ago
  So you'd rather spend your money on prisons, militarised drug police, DARE propaganda etc? You could fund some pretty sweet social programs and healthcare if you took back the DEA budget...
  - mseebach 13y ago
    The DEA budget is less that $10 per US citizen. I'm all for saving that money, but it won't even buy the stationary for a "sweet social program".
    - Nursie 13y ago
      $10 per US citizen is over 3 billion dollars. I'm pretty sure you could do something useful with 3 billion dollars. Hell, there are 10,000 employees at the DEA, in the most simplistic case you could replace them with drug rehab folks and that's a couple of hundred extra per state. That's enough to have an impact. (-edit-- yeah ok, I may have overestimated the budget of the DEA, but 3 billion is not to be sniffed at, and the DEA is really only the tip of the iceberg)
kristiandupont 13y ago
Ideologically I agree with you, I don't like the idea of the state deciding what I can and cannot do to myself. However, I think you are trivializing it. The fact that some people do something that is illegal doesn't mean that the law has no effect. Alcohol is practically the only recreational drug I use and the same applies to a large group of my friends. I am sure that if other categories had been legal, they would have been more common as well. My parents would have had a harder time convincing me not to take something if you could buy it in a safe location with knowledge that the production was controlled etc. Now I'm not necessarily saying that this would have been worse, but you're suggesting that the only thing that would happen from legalizing everything would be that people would keep consuming like they do today (because people who want something can get it anyway), and drug lords would be replaced by taxable corporations. Which I think is hardly the case.
- Shamanmuni 13y ago
  Well, history teaches us that it probably is the case. During the alcohol prohibition in the USA, the situation was more or less equal than before it. There aren't hard numbers of consumption during the prohibition (obviously) but statistics of alcohol related deaths and arrests seem to show that there was a serious decrease just before the prohibition, and after a few years it returns to its previous state, and was worse in some aspects. http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults.htm http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults.htm Also, in the Netherlands the marijuana consumption rate is less than in the USA, despite it being almost legal. So, don't worry, things won't change much, except for those people who won't have to be worried about being arrested for smoking a plant.
  - vasilipupkin 13y ago
    Cross country comparisons are difficult. Just because Dutch consume less marijuana than U.S. it doesn't mean that U.S. will not consume more when it's legalized.
    - Shamanmuni 13y ago
      That's true, but the statistics tend to show that consumption rate is unrelated to its legal status. As far as I know, there aren't any records of a boom in consumption just because a drug was legalized. And I'm not talking about marijuana only, but drugs in general, alcohol included. Considering that, we can say that the fear of people going mad about a drug just because it was legalized is another myth of the "war on drugs".

by pstuart 13y ago

steve19 13y ago

The fact that so many people mess themselves up on legal amphetamines and opiates is unfortunately why there is so much opposition to legalizing drugs. I don't care what you put in your body (legal or otherwise), its your body and your life and you are compelled to do so for reasons I might not understand, but if I found a loved one was taking a cocktail of amphetamines and opiates I would do everything in my power to see they got the help and support they needed to get off it. Legalizing amphetamines would trigger major societal problems. What percentage of HN would feel the need to consume it in order to compete at school, the office or the market. Nanny state? You make it sound so simple. Drugs are just chemicals. Why not say all chemicals should be legalized. What about RDX (a military-grade explosive)? Is the nanny state getting in the way of me having a good time on private property blowing stuff up? I can safely use military weapons, so why can't I purchase them privately?

Crito 13y ago
Ah yes, the good old "If you legalize drugs, next we'll be legalizing plastic explosives!" slippery-slope argume... wait what? That is one hell of a new one. You guys are getting more creative every day...
- kristiandupont 13y ago
  That wasn't GP's argument at all.
  - Crito 13y ago
    His argument devolved into incoherency. What little of it survived, has already been addressed at considerable length.
nate_meurer 13y ago
Your last sentence is one big bait-and-switch. Your simple possession of RDX is an entirely different matter from "blowing stuff up". I can blow stuff up just as easily with ammonium nitrate (used by the ton for fertilizing farmland) and diesel. Both of those are legal, but perhaps you'd rather they not be? You know, just in case... The drug war has not criminalized harmful behavior caused by drugs. That would make far too much sense. The drug war criminalizes the mere possession of drugs, regardless of any actual harmful behavior. Then the nanny state corrects your behavior by giving you a criminal record.
- vasilipupkin 13y ago
  If you make it easier and cheaper to purchase drugs by making it legal, it is natural to expect that more people would use and purchase them, on the margin. Is that what we want?
  - inDigiNeous 13y ago
    People are going to get wasted anyhow. Why not offer legal alternatives to alcohol (which just makes us stupid and dead) and tobacco. The only reason I see why cannabis is not legal yet is because it threatens the medical industry in a big way. Cannabis, although easily becomes an addiction, is also a big medicine for many things. When people start to realize this in big quantities, the medical companies are going to get worried, as their prescription drugs that may cause coma and death, will not be used so much anymore.
  - nate_meurer 13y ago
    Your question is bit of a non-sequitur, but any answer would have to depend on the drug in question. If we're talking about alcohol, then the rise in consumption is absolutely acceptable because 1.) those who abuse are now treated as addicts instead of imprisoned by default, and 2.) those who don't abuse it are now free from the horrors of capricious and arbitrary criminal persecution. Same goes for marijuana and tobacco (which is, in my meager experience, the most addictive drug of all). Now, if we're talking about meth or narcotics, then obviously any rise in consumption has to be taken very seriously, and then addressed by treating addicts medically as they should be, instead of sending them deeper underground by making them criminals.
felipe 13y ago
> Why not say all chemicals should be legalized. Very simple: Law enforcement protects individuals against the actions of other individuals, and not against themselves. Your loved one needs addiction treatment (i. e.: heathcare), and law enforcement will not solve his/her problem.
throwaway420420 13y ago
You are ignorant, have you ever been an addict? I doubt it, you've probably lived a safe life in your white middle-class bubble. If you think you could just convince a loved one to stop doing dope and crank with words, you're living in a fucking dream world. I speak from experience, having the disease of addiction. You are extremely naive, stop posting please.
- andyhmltn 13y ago
  The exact same thing can be said for alcohol. A substance which I can go and buy from the corner store.
- tomp 13y ago
  So throwing them in jail is your solution?
- icebraining 13y ago
  As someone who has lived with an (heroine) addict, I can tell you that decriminalization was essential in getting him to treatment, but he did stop consuming (after a few restarts, and after hurting a lot of people around him). The months he spent in jail didn't help at all.

paulhauggis 13y ago

"I don't want or need your approval for what I put in my body." I agree. However, I shouldn't have to clean up the mess. IE: rocketing health care costs and social programs that come out of my tax dollars.

slavak 13y ago
The costs already come out of your tax dollars. Or did you think the massive anti-drug enforcement efforts and booming prison population are free?
daveid 13y ago
Well, would you rather those same tax dollars are spent on something that doesn't work with people not getting treatment, or on treatment for those same people that is likely to work?
Nursie 13y ago
So you'd rather spend your money on prisons, militarised drug police, DARE propaganda etc? You could fund some pretty sweet social programs and healthcare if you took back the DEA budget...
- mseebach 13y ago
  The DEA budget is less that $10 per US citizen. I'm all for saving that money, but it won't even buy the stationary for a "sweet social program".
  - Nursie 13y ago
    $10 per US citizen is over 3 billion dollars. I'm pretty sure you could do something useful with 3 billion dollars. Hell, there are 10,000 employees at the DEA, in the most simplistic case you could replace them with drug rehab folks and that's a couple of hundred extra per state. That's enough to have an impact. (-edit-- yeah ok, I may have overestimated the budget of the DEA, but 3 billion is not to be sniffed at, and the DEA is really only the tip of the iceberg)

kristiandupont 13y ago

Ideologically I agree with you, I don't like the idea of the state deciding what I can and cannot do to myself. However, I think you are trivializing it. The fact that some people do something that is illegal doesn't mean that the law has no effect. Alcohol is practically the only recreational drug I use and the same applies to a large group of my friends. I am sure that if other categories had been legal, they would have been more common as well. My parents would have had a harder time convincing me not to take something if you could buy it in a safe location with knowledge that the production was controlled etc. Now I'm not necessarily saying that this would have been worse, but you're suggesting that the only thing that would happen from legalizing everything would be that people would keep consuming like they do today (because people who want something can get it anyway), and drug lords would be replaced by taxable corporations. Which I think is hardly the case.

Shamanmuni 13y ago
Well, history teaches us that it probably is the case. During the alcohol prohibition in the USA, the situation was more or less equal than before it. There aren't hard numbers of consumption during the prohibition (obviously) but statistics of alcohol related deaths and arrests seem to show that there was a serious decrease just before the prohibition, and after a few years it returns to its previous state, and was worse in some aspects. http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults.htm http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults.htm Also, in the Netherlands the marijuana consumption rate is less than in the USA, despite it being almost legal. So, don't worry, things won't change much, except for those people who won't have to be worried about being arrested for smoking a plant.
- vasilipupkin 13y ago
  Cross country comparisons are difficult. Just because Dutch consume less marijuana than U.S. it doesn't mean that U.S. will not consume more when it's legalized.
  - Shamanmuni 13y ago
    That's true, but the statistics tend to show that consumption rate is unrelated to its legal status. As far as I know, there aren't any records of a boom in consumption just because a drug was legalized. And I'm not talking about marijuana only, but drugs in general, alcohol included. Considering that, we can say that the fear of people going mad about a drug just because it was legalized is another myth of the "war on drugs".