I guess the Netherlands does this to some extent. You could argue the money spent on the 'war on drugs' stuff you list is more than what would be necessary to take care of the junkies that result so you'd actually see money saved by that approach.
And really, drug abuse is more a symptom of deeper problems than a problem in and of itself. Most people will avoid that life if they have a purpose, a job, a family, etc. Most things look better than life as a pathetic junkie.
The Netherlands hasn't fallen apart as a result of their policies. So, maybe your revelation is worth a try.
wart57 wrote:I just had a revelation.
Drugs need to be legalized.
All of them.
If you want them, you can get them, and put the government in charge of them.
You can go to a clinic and get whatever drug you want free of charge, payed for by the tax payers.
The war on drugs is over. No more drug dealers as you can get the drugs for free. No more muggings, or burglaries, or shop lifting to support a drug habit. The size of the prison population would also be greatly diminished. Farmers who have trouble keeping their farms can now grow drugs for the government. Public transportation would have to be greatly improved as we don't want impaired drivers all over the roads. The snack food industry would benefit greatly from it, maybe we can put an extra tax on cheeto's to help pay for some of this.
Last edited by Joe Shlabotnik on November 10 15, 12:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
sss alert: wife's brother, an addict, OD'd at 29. Years of misery and lying and theft and lying and rehab and backsliding. Left behind a daughter. Plenty of pain to go around
wart57 wrote:But too each his own, ans long as you don't hurt anyone else, including unborn kids if you are pregnant.
You can't take drugs (regularly) and not hurt anyone else. It's impossible.
complete bull. C'mon, Fat.
(Maybe I should specify that we're talking serious drugs here, not casual marijuana or alcohol or cigarettes -- nicotine is a drug.)
I've worked with drug dealers and addicts for years and every single one of them have hurt nearly everyone that has been in their life because of their drug use. Every one of them used that excuse -- I'm not hurting anyone. They didn't recognize that they were leaving a trail of carnage in their wake for years until they were sober. No one can escape the fact that they have families, friends, and personal responsibilities that are almost always damaged by regular drug use/abuse.
Maybe if you're single and unattached and unemployed, with few family connects, you could pull it off. But, you're likely still going to damage relationships with friends, neighbors, and people you have dealings with on a regular basis.
I shared my sisters story and was ridiculed for being naive.
Single choices in life can have lasting effects.
I chose to move with my then fiance to Alabama in 1996. That led to a series of events that landed me in a job in Phoenix where I met my wife and we now have 4 girls. I never would have met her and those kids would not have been born had I not made 1 choice in my life way back in 1996.
The choice to do drugs can and does have drastic and long lasting effects.
wart57 wrote:But too each his own, ans long as you don't hurt anyone else, including unborn kids if you are pregnant.
You can't take drugs (regularly) and not hurt anyone else. It's impossible.
complete bull. C'mon, Fat.
(Maybe I should specify that we're talking serious drugs here, not casual marijuana or alcohol or cigarettes -- nicotine is a drug.)
I've worked with drug dealers and addicts for years and every single one of them have hurt nearly everyone that has been in their life because of their drug use. Every one of them used that excuse -- I'm not hurting anyone. They didn't recognize that they were leaving a trail of carnage in their wake for years until they were sober. No one can escape the fact that they have families, friends, and personal responsibilities that are almost always damaged by regular drug use/abuse.
Maybe if you're single and unattached and unemployed, with few family connects, you could pull it off. But, you're likely still going to damage relationships with friends, neighbors, and people you have dealings with on a regular basis.
You are talking about a very specific (but common) circumstance with a very specific (but common) cause using specific (but common) drugs. Casting such a wide net with complete disregard for nuance is why we are wasting billions of dollars fighting weed and psychedelics instead of getting people like those the help that they need. The legalization effort is a specific push to help the people who need it and leave those who don't alone. That's really all there is to it.
wart57 wrote:But too each his own, ans long as you don't hurt anyone else, including unborn kids if you are pregnant.
You can't take drugs (regularly) and not hurt anyone else. It's impossible.
complete bull. C'mon, Fat.
(Maybe I should specify that we're talking serious drugs here, not casual marijuana or alcohol or cigarettes -- nicotine is a drug.)
I've worked with drug dealers and addicts for years and every single one of them have hurt nearly everyone that has been in their life because of their drug use. Every one of them used that excuse -- I'm not hurting anyone. They didn't recognize that they were leaving a trail of carnage in their wake for years until they were sober. No one can escape the fact that they have families, friends, and personal responsibilities that are almost always damaged by regular drug use/abuse.
Maybe if you're single and unattached and unemployed, with few family connects, you could pull it off. But, you're likely still going to damage relationships with friends, neighbors, and people you have dealings with on a regular basis.
You are talking about a very specific (but common) circumstance with a very specific (but common) cause using specific (but common) drugs. Casting such a wide net with complete disregard for nuance is why we are wasting billions of dollars fighting weed and psychedelics instead of getting people like those the help that they need. The legalization effort is a specific push to help the people who need it and leave those who don't alone. That's really all there is to it.
Maybe legalizing will lead to greater efforts to help those who need help. I have seen people who only smoke pot destroy their lives over it. My cousin lost his marriage due to pot use. Hot cousin is fighting with her fiance because all he wants to do is smoke pot, and he has a job as a live in care giver for the elderly. Would you like someone who just smoked a joint administering medication to an elderly relative?
Legalizing drugs, like other topics that we post about here such as policing, politics, racism, economics etc, is a very complex topic that demands a nuanced, graceful and understanding approach to discussing it. Obviously different drugs require different regulation and every individual's relationship to and understanding of how drugs affect them and society as a whole is different than everyone else's.
I've advocated legalized pot since I was a kid, a decade before I even had interest in trying it. If cocaine wasn't so dangerous in more concentrated forms, I'd say legalize that and hallucinogenic mushrooms as well. One side of me thinks truly harmful drugs (as in, stuff you can die from directly) need to stay illegal. Then I reach for my pint and think "well, [expletive]."
I don't think coke or psychadelic drugs will be legalized any time soon. I think at this point pot will be legal in some sense just about everywhere outside of the bible belt in a decade.
I will always stay away from hard drugs - I am content with the pleasant mix of alcohol, THC, and caffeine. Although I would consider trying Slo Mo, the sci fi drug from Dredd. That looks fun. Other than getting shot through the cheek by Karl Urban's chin.
Maclowery wrote:And here I always thought it would be about booze.
At least yours isn't a quote from a gay cowboy move, however if I were gay Jake Gyllenhall wouldn't be a bad way to go. I would include Heath Leger too, but he is dead and I am not in to necrophilia. But, John Stamos is always the first answer to that question.
