Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 02/07/05 10:20 am:
Excon,
>>>So, debate it, instead of telling me we should debate it. That's just spin designed to pretend the emperor has clothes on.<<<
Alright. In that case... I do not believe that it is my responsibility to pay for addicts to get clean. I do not believe that it is my responsibility to make sure adicts have a roof over their heads. I do not believe that it is my responsibility to make sure than an addict is buying the right drugs and using the right needle. I don't want my tax dollars paying for those things. It is THEIR responsibility, not mine, and not the governments.
Which goes back to what I have said a million times before... PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
>>>And, who is the "we" you are talking about, if not the government? And, if we're (whoever the hell we is) not treating them correctly, just who is going to do it differently? You?<<<
"We" is "the taxpayers".
My point is that NOBODY should be treating them any differently. If crack-ho wants to be treated differently, then she/he should stop being a crack-ho. There are plenty of rehab programs out there, and charitable organizations that specialize in that sort of thing. We don't need to create a new program in which the government feeds their habbit. We need the crack-hos to make up their minds to change and to take responsibility.
But you don't believe in that. You think it's the GOVERNMENT'S job to support them, make sure they have a roof over their heads, cloths on their backs, food in their mouths... and now drugs in their veins. You don't put any of the onus on the users at all. It's all the government's fault for fighting against drugs in the first place, and for not letting them have the drugs in the second place.
>>>One cannot, as you do, only look at part of the problem, create laws dealing with part of the problem, and then say you're not responsible for the OTHER part of the problem.<<<
My point is that we shouldn't be legislating ANYTHING at all with regards to drug users. They're on their own. If they screw up, it's their problem.
If I as a non-drug-user loose my job and all my money, and can't support my wife and kids, there's nobody there to help me. I'm on my own. But if I was a drug user, and I spent all my money on drugs, then there are hundreds of groups out there that will get me clean, give me a job, free counseling, a place to live, food, etc. (and now under this pilot program, all the free drugs I want). THAT is part of the victimization of the USA... the creation of a new victim class that is given spcial priveliges for the honor of having made the wrong choices in life. We reward bad behavior. THAT is not how personal responsibility is supposed to work.
>>>And, they are entitled to better from us.<<<
The ONLY THING they are entitled to is the right to work and make something of themselves. Anything else is up to them.
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 02/07/05 2:09 pm:
Hello Elliot:
>>>My point is that we shouldn't be legislating ANYTHING at all with regards to drug users. They're on their own. If they screw up, it's their problem.<<<
Sounds like an argument for legalization, and I couldn't agree more.
excon
Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 02/07/05 2:25 pm:
ex,
You commented to Elliot, "The plight of addicts ARE a direct result of government action."
Huh? Their plight, and their addiction, are both a direct result of the choices they made. To enable them further isn't compassion.
Steve
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 02/07/05 2:36 pm:
>>>Sounds like an argument for legalization, and I couldn't agree more. <<<
Excon,
I've told you before that I wouldn't have a problem with legalization for many (not all) drugs. But that is not the point I'm making here. My point is that we shouldn't be creating programs to help addicts identify themselves as victims and collect benefits for their poor lifestyle choices. They should live with the consequences.
If you are in favor of not legislating AGAINST drug use, then you should be equally in favor of not legislating FOR drug use either. In other words, you SHOULD be against government dispensory programs as much as you are against the Rockerfeller Law. They are opposite sides of the same coin, and if you are against legislating one side of the issue, you SHOULD be against legislating the other side of the issue.
Is that how you feel?
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 02/07/05 3:02 pm:
Hi El:
I agree with the hands off approach. But if the government is going to involve itself in a problem, then what they legislate should fix the problem, not make it worse. What they’re doing today, is making it worse.
excon
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 02/07/05 3:04 pm:
Ahhh. Now you are assuming that a government dispensory would make things better. And while I admit that there are a few theoretical arguments in favor of such an approach, we certainly do not have any direct proof that a government dispensory wouldn't create more problems than it solves... if only by dint of the fact that it would be a GOVERNMENT program, which means a b*tched up clusterf*ck from the get-go.
And I agree with you that what we are doing now isn't working, and I agree that we should change it... through legal means. That's why I don't have a problem with how the Rockefeller law is currently going through a reversal here. It is a change that we can both agree with, and it is taking place through LEGAL MEANS. I'm 100% fine with that.
Clarification/Follow-up by Choux on 02/07/05 4:28 pm:
ELLIOT !!! IT IS *CANADA*.
Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 02/08/05 7:20 am:
El:
You intimate that I suggest some illegal action. I don't.
excon
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 02/08/05 7:37 am:
Excon,
You have in the past. You have been pretty clear that you believe that it is okay for people to do drugs and get high as a sort of protest against the drug laws. We've discussed that before. And I advocated change through the system, while you advocated illegal action OUTSIDE the system.
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 02/08/05 8:19 am:
Hello again, El.
Nahh. If I thought that was so, I would be smoking on the steps of the Capitol instead of trying to change opinions here with my words.
I think people should get high because it's their Constitutional right to do so - not as a protest.
excon
Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 02/08/05 8:22 am:
Choux,
"Robbery$, theft$, murder, cost of War on Drugs" aren't consequences of heroin usage. Consequences are addiction, mental impairment, collapsed veins, spontaneous abortion, abscesses, bacterial infections, infection of heart lining and valves, arthritis and other rheumatologic problems, infectious diseases, and yes, prison confinement. Those are possible consequences for choosing to use heroin.
We don't 'let' heroin addicts "catch AIDS or Hepatitis and die on the street". Those are consequences of the choice they make to engage in risky behavior. We don't 'let' women sell "their bodies for drugs", that's a choice they make to facilitate the risky behavior they choose to engage in.
Whether our drug policy is a failure or not was not the issue raised. It is not medically ethical to 'distribute' free heroin to addicts. I'm all for finding a better solution to the problem. I'm all for helping addicts get freed from their addiction, but what these people are victims of is their choice to engage in risky behavior.
And before you or anyone else accuses me of being a cold-hearted SOB, let me remind you of something I've already stated. I used to be a druggie and I have a daughter that is dying of AIDS, admittedly more than likely from sharing needles or trading sex for drugs, so I am intimately familiar with the issue. As much as all of us hate my daughter's situation, we understand, and she admits, it is the result of her choices. It sucks...but I'm not going to enable her to continue in the risky behavior that got her there. I'd much rather see her live as happy, productive and healthy as possible.
Steve
Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 02/08/05 8:50 am:
ex,
Government has an obligation to protect society, but it has no business enabling addicts. Distributing free heroin is only enabling them to continue in risky, destructive behavior. It doesn't solve the problem. I don't have the answer ex, but I look at it this way...I am not going to enable behavior that will hasten my daughter's death. I'm willing to do anything within my means to love her, feed her, pray for her...get her all the help she needs, but I'm not going to help kill her.
Steve
Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 02/08/05 10:26 am:
Hi Steve,
I'm bummed about your daughter. My heart goes out to your family.
Frankly, I agree with you. The government has no business in the heroine business. But, it IS in the heroine business. As a matter of fact, they're in the heroine business big time, as long as they throw people in jail for dealing or using it.
There are consequences of that stance, and the outcome is rather ugly.
Let me list just some of the un-intended (intended?) consequences of the present draconian drug laws: 1) The street price of heroine is artificially inflated, which requires its users to take drastic measures to obtain it. 2) If he wanted to quit, treatment is NOT available to the street junkie. 3) If he wanted to quit, treatment is NOT available to the street junkie.
Yes, I listed number 2 twice because it's that important.
It's my position that as long as government action (drug laws) is directly responsible for an outcome, then the government is obligated to do something about the outcome it created. I said it above, and I'll say it again here. The plight of the street junkie IS the government's responsibility, because it created the plight.
It did not create the addiction. That was a personal choice. But if drugs weren't illegal, treatment for heroine addiction would be widely available for street junkies, ala Betty Ford Clinic. But it isn’t.
We could still make treatment available, even though heroine is illegal, but we don't.
What I am saying, is nothing more than this. As long as government is going to be involved in a problem, then they should really be INVOLVED - in the ENTIRE problem, not just the cops problem and then ignore the rest.
Canada’s' approach is not the answer. Government should not give heroine to junkies. But it is, at the very least, an acknowledgment of the problem and an attempt to relieve it.
That I applaud.
excon
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 02/08/05 11:38 am:
excon,
Sorry about the second answer. I meant to hit the clarification button. Thanks for the stars though.
And no, I do not believe that the risk of jail is a driving factor in pricing. I believe that risk of jail is one of the things that effects supply, but it is only a minimal effect. The same argument could be made for any black-market item or bootlegged item, but it just dosn't hold true in the end... not in any economy around the world or for any product in existence. The people who have already decided to engage in an illegal act such as selling or purchasing drugs have already factored the risk into their pricing. After that, the economic effect is minimal. And most buyers and sellers tend to think that they are too smart to be caught anyway, so they don't really look at the risks.
Besides, the prices are diven the same way ALL prices are... by the market. If the dealer next door is selling his smack for $5/bag less than you are, you are going to have to lower your prices in order to compete (or shoot him, whichever you deem cheaper in the long run). The risk of jail time doesn't enter into that calculation.
Elliot
