Or maybe you'd try LSD in the right setting and frame of mind and have your consciousness expanded.
Your argument is offensive. If you need to be protected from your lack of self control then to make the rest of the world suffer is depraved.
Your argument is offensive. If you need to be protected from your lack of self control then to make the rest of the world suffer is depraved.
My argument is not offensive, you simply chose to be offended.
> If you need to be protected from your lack of self control then to make the rest of the world suffer is depraved.
Yeah, let's get rid of all the guard rails on mountain roads too. Some of us like the adrenaline of getting near the edge and if you need to be protected from your lack of self control, too bad. My desire to ride the edge should trump your desire for guard rails... right?
I'm offended by your reasoning and lack of insight into the overall societal cost of having certain temptations kept out of your reach. This not just about getting high, it's about the crime, corruption and death that comes from this madness.
I'm guessing you are a relatively intelligent person - try thins thought experiment: Do you drink alcohol? Can you control your intake? Know anybody who does? Know anybody who is an alcoholic? Do you accept that most people who use it can enjoy it but there are some unfortunates who can't and that's just the price of the freedom to drink?
Now replace the word "alcohol" with "drugs". Because guess what? Alcohol is a drug too, except it's socially acceptable.
I'm not trying to be an asshole, but your original premise comes off as "sure, other people may be fucked by the system now, but it works pretty ok by me so I see no need to change it"
Do you accept that most people who own and use guns do so responsibly but that there are some unfortunates who can't and that's just the price of the freedom to own and use guns?
I believe in personal freedom up to the point where that freedom impedes on that of another. What you put in your body is your own god damn business.
One more argument in my favor: obesity is reaching epidemic levels in America and has a great societal cost. Do you think we should make junk food illegal to protect those that can't control themselves.
Every one of your arguments has been inadequate. Ignore the hurt of me calling you out and think about my point. The War on Drugs has done far more harm than good. It's bad policy and if you research it, did not have any good intentions behind it.
Right, but my point was that cost is worth the freedom. There's a lot of unhealthy drug fetishization and tragic deaths from irresponsible drug users too, and I think you already said the cost is worth the freedom.
> I believe in personal freedom up to the point where that freedom impedes on that of another. What you put in your body is your own god damn business.
If the world worked like that, I would agree with you whole-heartedly. But in real life, drug users end up killing or otherwise abusing people around them (whether it be through DUIs, child neglect, safety mistakes, etc.). So along with drug legalization there have to be dozens of secondary laws that outline what you can and can't do under the influence, where you can and can't go, etc. And people (of course, not thinking clearly while under the influence), will break these laws anyway and end up killing people, destroying property, etc.
> Do you think we should make junk food illegal to protect those that can't control themselves.
Completely illegal? No. But I see the value in limiting accessibility to junk food, especially in schools and such, where kids are still developing self-discipline. So maybe that's where I can agree with you.
Legalize them. Regulate them. Treat their abuse as a health issue, not a criminal one.
When my brother overdosed on heroin, the police laughed about just another dead junkie. Yeah, I feel so much safer.
A health issue with a cost burden on responsible people who exercise good judgment. Addicts rarely pay for their own treatment.
> When my brother overdosed on heroin, the police laughed about just another dead junkie. Yeah, I feel so much safer.
As far as I know, my entire extended family has not has a single drug abuse case. And certainly a drug death would be unheard of. We were all taught growing up that mind-altering substances should be avoided at all costs, and it paid off with a virtual 0% drug usage rate in the family.
Contrast with your family where you yourself openly admit to using drugs recreationally and think they are good, yet your brother died overdosing on them. I would venture to guess that there are other, unnamed members of your family that use drugs and have or had drug problems in the past.
The best and simplest place to stop drug abuse is in the home via good parenting. That is my vision for what America should strive for. I can't lend my support to your cause because I don't believe in it. I believe that if my parents and grandparents taught us it was okay to experiment "safely" with drugs and such that the amount of drug abuse in the extended family would go way up. Good luck-
I know that ideas and the words that define them are the proper path, but for such a smug, self-satisfied, and small-minded jerk such as ythl, I'd like to take it outside and wipe the stupid grin off of his face.
I had two friends overdose on heroin, and I found them and made the call that saved their lives. I watched the paramedics amble up the stairs, looking pissed that they had to deal with two more junkies on a Saturday night. One of my friends' hearts stopped for a minute and a half. I got grilled by the cops for an hour, who wanted me to snitch on the dealer and wondered why I would hang out with such "losers" in the first place.
Find a facility that invoices "responsible people" and will treat someone without health insurance or very deep pockets. Find a person who is hopelessly addicted to marijuana so much that they burden responsible people with their expensive treatment.
Again, draw the comparison to cigarettes and alcohol, both harmful and deadly addictive products. Responsible people don't burden the healthcare system with health issues caused by smoking or drinking. Responsible people don't expose themselves to the harmful effects of prolonged stress through overwork and sleep deprivation enabled by legalized stimulant intake (caffeine, nicotine, Adderall, modafinil).
Reminder that addicts come in all forms of people you might consider responsible contributors to society. Surgeons, businessmen, lawyers, politicians, CEOs, computer programmers.
> We were all taught growing up that mind-altering substances should be avoided at all costs, and it paid off with a virtual 0% drug usage rate in the family.
That you know of. Adolescents rebel, seek novelty, don't have the best judgment and have misguided priorities and influences; addicts and alcoholics learn to hide questionable behavior. People don't talk about it out of shame and not wanting to disappoint.
I lost two childhood friends to the disease. Their families would have said the same thing. One family found out after the autopsy. They were a model family and they were completely blindsided. "How could this happen to him of all people?" was the prominent reaction I remember.
> Contrast with your family where you yourself openly admit to using drugs recreationally and think they are good, yet your brother died overdosing on them. I would venture to guess that there are other, unnamed members of your family that use drugs and have or had drug problems in the past.
I know more families than I can realistically count who openly drank in front of their children, even encouraged consumption, yet their kids didn't grow up to be alcoholics. I know of people who raised kids with a realistic outlook on marijuana use, yet none of them have overdosed and died.
I know families who blatantly used highly addictive drugs in front of their kids, yet somehow, their children grew up to deny that lifestyle and still be successful and drug free.
You can instill values through lessons and experiences in children, yet as they gain autonomy it is up to them to accept, reject, interpret or reflect on them.
You may have chose to accept those experiences and attribute them to your lifestyle, but the same cannot be universally applied across the population.
It is a low blow to use the overdose of someone's brother to try to raise your anecdote as fact.
> The best and simplest place to stop drug abuse is in the home via good parenting.
Good parenting can't stop people from making the choices they want to make. People are people, not robots to be programmed, who have a multitude of varied beliefs and reasons to approach mind altering substances.
Murderers, rapists, thieves and war criminals can and have come from homes with good parents. So can addicts.
> I believe that if my parents and grandparents taught us it was okay to experiment "safely" with drugs and such that the amount of drug abuse in the extended family would go way up
The truth is people are capable of responsible use of drugs including alcohol. There are also dangers, risks and consequences behind consumption; some of them not good at all.
However, I would want my child to come to me if they had a problem with drugs including alcohol or addiction. Lying breeds resentment. Drawing hard but false lines in the sand is a good way for someone to file you away as a person who can't be turned to when they need the help of someone honest and trustworthy.
> That is my vision for what America should strive for. I can't lend my support to your cause because I don't believe in it.
Or we can approach addiction with a realistic outlook: people are going to drink and use drugs. By virtue of the way our brains work, some people will become addicted. There isn't a single way to stop this and there are many, many reasons it will continue despite best efforts to end it. What we can do is educate, take preventative measures, limit availability, ensure quality and purity, reduce harm, move addiction from out of the shadows of criminality and provide accessible/affordable treatment.
The difference between your example and drug policy, is that guard rails are there to prevent accidents. Same with laws on speeding (protects others from speeders). American drug policy doesn't prevent accidents, it restricts individual freedoms under the guise of protecting society.
My family has serious problems with alcoholism. As a result, I don't drink because it would be a very risky personal choice. Statistically I'd probably be dead before retirement. However, I don't have a problem with weed or LSD. They're fun and I know how to use them safely, so I do.
Why do we have guardrails for LSD? Works fine for me! Why do we have national guardrails for weed? It's legal in my state and works fine for me! And why in the world is alcohol legal? This is a toxic substance, it's seriously risky for me, and putting it out in the open could lead to bad decisions on my part. We should ban it!
No. We shouldn't ban alcohol. Nor weed or LSD. These aren't guardrails protecting us from the cliff. These law are baby fences, presuming that some government official needs to protect us from ourselves.
Why should we have guardrails for guns? Works fine for me! It's legal in my state and I use mine responsibly! To suicide prone and mentally unstable people this is a deadly tool, it's seriously risky them. We should ban it!
Your and my ideas of individual freedoms are different. You (probably, based on your political leanings) believe that guns are bad and should be banned. You believe that particular freedom should be taken from individuals (but retained by governments). You believe that drugs are good and should not be banned. And the faulty logic you use is... "people should be able to harm themselves and that's why drugs should be legal. Guns harm others therefore they should be illegal." The elephant in the room, of course, is the death and damage caused accidentally to others by people under the influence of drugs.
Also, I suggest you stop stereotyping people. You're not good at it, and your argument attacks thing I never even implied. I believe in a collective-oriented society with strong individual freedoms.
Schizophrenics should not be allowed to buy a pocket pistol, but mentally sound citizens should be essentially unrestricted... no current military hardware or classified technology, the rest is fair game. Buy a tank if you want.
Same with drugs or any other policy. Blatantly addictive or destructive drugs like krokodil should not be allowed, but safe drugs like LSD/weed/mushrooms (and others) should be at least as legal as alcohol.
People in favor of universal drug legalization are all for drug control in the same sense as gun control, plus higher taxes for narcotics. But control is different from prohibition.
So, yes, drugs should have safety rails provided by the government. It's one of many public services governments should provide. But right now, that "safety rail" is an electric fence with thousands of security guards watching it.
So I'm not liable for what happens to people on my property?
Do you truly believe that you haven't tried controlled substances because they are hard to get?
And, do you believe you are law-abiding?
Although not personally offended myself, it is almost never appropriate to say this to somebody hurt by an action or comment you have made. Please respect the feelings and opinions of others, even when you find it difficult or nigh impossible (such as in this case) to relate to the perspective of the hurt party.
And see, so drugs are good, right? Only such experiences lead to more such experiences, and on and on.
Addiction doesn't stem from initial bad experiences, but exceptionally good ones. You should fear the latter many times more than the former.