4 ms·

I'm all for drug legalization, however, this should also be a part of the laws: -Businesses should be able to fire someone for being under the influence of any

I'm all for drug legalization, however, this should also be a part of the laws: -Businesses should be able to fire someone for being under the influence of any mind-altering substance. The CA proposition a few years back had a clause in there that made it very difficult. Calling addiction a "medical issue" makes it even worse because the differences between recreational use and addiction aren't that easy to distinguish. -The individual should pay for all of their own issues, medical expenses, etc due to drug addiction. Many of the advocates not only want legalization (because it's their choice, their body) but none of the consequences that come along with it (medical bills due to addiction). It's unfair for me, as an individual that chooses not to put those drugs into my body to also have rising medical costs that pay for the people that willingly ingest drugs. -Tort reform. We all know heroin is addictive and will cause many deaths and ruin many lives. If a company sells it and you choose to take it and die, your family shouldn't be able to sue the company or the government. We still have cigarette lawsuits..and it's been known to cause cancer for 50+ years (it's even written on the box). I think my overall issue is that advocates want all of the benefits (ability to use illegal drugs legally) yet also want society to pay for any of the negative effects that come along with it (death, addiction). You should have the choice to legally put anything in your body....but be responsible for anything negative that comes along with it. If you don't have the resources to deal with the consequences, you probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

reseur 11y ago
>Businesses should be able to fire someone for being under the influence of any mind-altering substance. TIFU by drinking coffee in the morning...
Nursie 11y ago
>> -Businesses should be able to fire someone for being under the influence of any mind-altering substance. Pretty sure they already can, you do not come into work drunk, for example. >> -The individual should pay for all of their own issues, medical expenses, etc due to drug addiction. ... It's unfair for me ... You already pay lots and lots and lots and lots of money to drug-war enforcement efforts. The cost of health problems related to drugs would be minimal compared to this. Lots of conservatives seem to want all the benefits of drug legalisation (reduced tax bills) without any responsibility (helping out your fellow man). Further, those taxes help keep you safe. You want to be robbed by an addict or do you want to give a few cents to the free-heroin-for-addicts program that keeps them from committing crime and helps them become contributing members of society?
- paulhauggis 11y ago
  "Pretty sure they already can, you do not come into work drunk, for example." We don't have medical alcohol, so it's not the same thing. "You already pay lots and lots and lots and lots of money to drug-war enforcement efforts. The cost of health problems related to drugs would be minimal compared to this." The costs can't really be calculated at this point. We don't really know how many more or less people will need medical care after the legalization of many drugs. However, in my experience, it will most likely be many more than we estimate now. "Lots of conservatives seem to want all the benefits of drug legalisation (reduced tax bills) without any responsibility (helping out your fellow man)." That's not how taxes work. Yes, we will have have more taxes, but they will be spent on something..and we will always need more. The benefit is that our fellow man gets the option now of recreational drug use without going to jail. "Further, those taxes help keep you safe. You want to be robbed by an addict or do you want to give a few cents to the free-heroin-for-addicts program that keeps them from committing crime and helps them become contributing members of society?" I'm unclear why the reason I need to legalize drugs is to appease a criminal from not robbing me. It's answers like this that make me glad I have multiple guns at my disposal to protect my home and my family. If heroin is as bad as you describe (creating addicted criminals that want to rob me), why again should it be legalized? You aren't really making a good case, sorry.
  - Nursie 11y ago
    >> We don't have medical alcohol, so it's not the same thing. Yah, we do. Addicts in the UK are given maintenance IIRC. Alcohol is also used in cases of methanol poisoning and various other emergency treatments, though that's not quite the same thing I guess. >> We don't really know how many more or less people will need medical care after the legalization of many drugs. However, in my experience, it will most likely be many more than we estimate now. It'll still be cheaper than the prisons, the militarised police etc etc. Of course, like you, I'm not naive enough to think those things will just go away. >> I'm unclear why the reason I need to legalize drugs is to appease a criminal from not robbing me. >> If heroin is as bad as you describe (creating addicted criminals that want to rob me), why again should it be legalized? Legalising would help you be less likely to have a criminal rob you by not pushing up the prices of their addiction to the point they feel they have to do this. But we're talking here about your demand that we not fund any healthcare or rehab once we have legalised/decriminalised. This is all part of the picture of helping people to recover and contribute to society rather than casting them out and saying "you fix it", which has a long history of not working. I mean, you're just kind-of OK with legalisation, not outraged at the billions spent in your name on making everything worse, but you're demanding that not one red-cent be spent on helping people? Sick dude. >> You aren't really making a good case, sorry. There are not many cases that can be made when someone has already decided that everyone else in society is not their problem.
tajen 11y ago
> If a company sells it and you choose to take it and die, your family shouldn't be able to sue the company or the government. So companies are free to do as much advertising and marketing as they like to make drugs pervasive, and only the consumer is supposed to resist? It's a heavy penalty on everyone's brain cycles. In Europe we generally forbid ads, marketing and product placement for alcohol and tobacco. [edit: If you go down the road of charging the consequences of drugs on the users,] I also believe that many of us aren't mature enough, and recreational first-time users should have to consciously unseal a sticker: "Upon consuming this drug, you are not allowed to work for x years, drive, or be treated for health", in addition to cancer/addition-related notices. I have no idea how to convey this message to users.
- paulhauggis 11y ago
  "I also believe that many of us aren't mature enough, and recreational first-time users should have to consciously unseal a sticker: "Upon consuming this drug, you are not allowed to work for x years, drive, or be treated for health", in addition to cancer/addition-related notices. I have no idea how to convey this message to users." If you feel you aren't mature enough as a "first-time user", then maybe you shouldn't be using in the first place. Think of it like shooting a gun for the first time. With more educated and mature people using drugs, it will make for a healthier society.
- Nursie 11y ago
  >> "Upon consuming this drug, you are not allowed to work for x years, drive, or be treated for health", Why the hell would you be so nasty about it? This is pure hysteria. Most drugs do not last all that long, are less harmful and addictive than alcohol and there is no reason at all to try to exclude them from work, care or driving (beyond the time the drug is in effect, obviously). We don't turn people away from healthcare because they have the odd drink do we? So why would we do it with ecstasy? Or cannabis? Or... ?
  - tajen 11y ago
    I was just following OP's opinion that consumers shouldn't be treated for health. If you want my own opinion, health is cheap for everyone in my home country, drugged or not, and I don't see why it's different in US/AU. Thanks for the downvote Nursie.

reseur 11y ago

>Businesses should be able to fire someone for being under the influence of any mind-altering substance. TIFU by drinking coffee in the morning...

Nursie 11y ago

>> -Businesses should be able to fire someone for being under the influence of any mind-altering substance. Pretty sure they already can, you do not come into work drunk, for example. >> -The individual should pay for all of their own issues, medical expenses, etc due to drug addiction. ... It's unfair for me ... You already pay lots and lots and lots and lots of money to drug-war enforcement efforts. The cost of health problems related to drugs would be minimal compared to this. Lots of conservatives seem to want all the benefits of drug legalisation (reduced tax bills) without any responsibility (helping out your fellow man). Further, those taxes help keep you safe. You want to be robbed by an addict or do you want to give a few cents to the free-heroin-for-addicts program that keeps them from committing crime and helps them become contributing members of society?

paulhauggis 11y ago
"Pretty sure they already can, you do not come into work drunk, for example." We don't have medical alcohol, so it's not the same thing. "You already pay lots and lots and lots and lots of money to drug-war enforcement efforts. The cost of health problems related to drugs would be minimal compared to this." The costs can't really be calculated at this point. We don't really know how many more or less people will need medical care after the legalization of many drugs. However, in my experience, it will most likely be many more than we estimate now. "Lots of conservatives seem to want all the benefits of drug legalisation (reduced tax bills) without any responsibility (helping out your fellow man)." That's not how taxes work. Yes, we will have have more taxes, but they will be spent on something..and we will always need more. The benefit is that our fellow man gets the option now of recreational drug use without going to jail. "Further, those taxes help keep you safe. You want to be robbed by an addict or do you want to give a few cents to the free-heroin-for-addicts program that keeps them from committing crime and helps them become contributing members of society?" I'm unclear why the reason I need to legalize drugs is to appease a criminal from not robbing me. It's answers like this that make me glad I have multiple guns at my disposal to protect my home and my family. If heroin is as bad as you describe (creating addicted criminals that want to rob me), why again should it be legalized? You aren't really making a good case, sorry.
- Nursie 11y ago
  >> We don't have medical alcohol, so it's not the same thing. Yah, we do. Addicts in the UK are given maintenance IIRC. Alcohol is also used in cases of methanol poisoning and various other emergency treatments, though that's not quite the same thing I guess. >> We don't really know how many more or less people will need medical care after the legalization of many drugs. However, in my experience, it will most likely be many more than we estimate now. It'll still be cheaper than the prisons, the militarised police etc etc. Of course, like you, I'm not naive enough to think those things will just go away. >> I'm unclear why the reason I need to legalize drugs is to appease a criminal from not robbing me. >> If heroin is as bad as you describe (creating addicted criminals that want to rob me), why again should it be legalized? Legalising would help you be less likely to have a criminal rob you by not pushing up the prices of their addiction to the point they feel they have to do this. But we're talking here about your demand that we not fund any healthcare or rehab once we have legalised/decriminalised. This is all part of the picture of helping people to recover and contribute to society rather than casting them out and saying "you fix it", which has a long history of not working. I mean, you're just kind-of OK with legalisation, not outraged at the billions spent in your name on making everything worse, but you're demanding that not one red-cent be spent on helping people? Sick dude. >> You aren't really making a good case, sorry. There are not many cases that can be made when someone has already decided that everyone else in society is not their problem.

tajen 11y ago

> If a company sells it and you choose to take it and die, your family shouldn't be able to sue the company or the government. So companies are free to do as much advertising and marketing as they like to make drugs pervasive, and only the consumer is supposed to resist? It's a heavy penalty on everyone's brain cycles. In Europe we generally forbid ads, marketing and product placement for alcohol and tobacco. [edit: If you go down the road of charging the consequences of drugs on the users,] I also believe that many of us aren't mature enough, and recreational first-time users should have to consciously unseal a sticker: "Upon consuming this drug, you are not allowed to work for x years, drive, or be treated for health", in addition to cancer/addition-related notices. I have no idea how to convey this message to users.

paulhauggis 11y ago
"I also believe that many of us aren't mature enough, and recreational first-time users should have to consciously unseal a sticker: "Upon consuming this drug, you are not allowed to work for x years, drive, or be treated for health", in addition to cancer/addition-related notices. I have no idea how to convey this message to users." If you feel you aren't mature enough as a "first-time user", then maybe you shouldn't be using in the first place. Think of it like shooting a gun for the first time. With more educated and mature people using drugs, it will make for a healthier society.
Nursie 11y ago
>> "Upon consuming this drug, you are not allowed to work for x years, drive, or be treated for health", Why the hell would you be so nasty about it? This is pure hysteria. Most drugs do not last all that long, are less harmful and addictive than alcohol and there is no reason at all to try to exclude them from work, care or driving (beyond the time the drug is in effect, obviously). We don't turn people away from healthcare because they have the odd drink do we? So why would we do it with ecstasy? Or cannabis? Or... ?
- tajen 11y ago
  I was just following OP's opinion that consumers shouldn't be treated for health. If you want my own opinion, health is cheap for everyone in my home country, drugged or not, and I don't see why it's different in US/AU. Thanks for the downvote Nursie.