Swiss approve prescription heroin

[Omen]

Swiss voters have backed a change in health policy that would provide prescription heroin to addicts.

Final results from the national referendum showed 68% of voters supported the plan.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Swiss approve prescription heroin

 

[RenegadeRows]

Interesting.

Methadone is just as addictive as heroin, and the withdrawals are worse. Yet they pass that **** out to addicts here in the US

It just seems a bit odd to treat a heroin addiction with heroin. Doesn't this make them drug dealers?

 

[HardTrainer]

It just seems a bit odd to treat a heroin addiction with heroin. Doesn't this make them drug dealers?

I think the theory is that as long as they get their 'fix' each day they can then carry on living normal productive lives.

It might not help the health of the individual in the long term, but it's supposed to take care of the social problem of heroin addicts living on the streets, beating up old ladies to pay for their next hit.

Might even work for all I know.

 

[Omen]

Interesting.

Methadone is just as addictive as heroin, and the withdrawals are worse. Yet they pass that **** out to addicts here in the US

It just seems a bit odd to treat a heroin addiction with heroin. Doesn't this make them drug dealers?

The governments of the world are the biggest drug dealers on earth.

The US government deals more drugs a year than all the drugs dealers in the US combined, doesn't that make them....drug dealers?

People have the right to deal drugs just as much as the government does.

 

[james1]

people don't have the right to deal drugs. If they did, they wouldn't go to jail for doing so.

 

[Omen]

people don't have the right to deal drugs. If they did, they wouldn't go to jail for doing so.

Since when do they go to jail?

JK..

When I say right I mean natural right, not man made law given right.

If you dealt, consumed or purchased alcohol during prohibition, you were a criminal, now, you just work for Budweiser.

Before they decriminalized Marijuana in some places, you'd be a criminal if you ingested it, now you just like getting high after work.

You can buy pain killers from a pharmacy but you can't buy them from someone not "licensed"....that's like cutting down a tree, splitting it into firewood and saying only certain licensed people can sell firewood.

The only reason laws are passed is because they serve agendas or make money.

If "John" wanted to sell X drug, why can't he? what is the argument against that?

"Law is mind without reason" Aristotle.

 

[james1]

Since when do they go to jail?

JK..

When I say right I mean natural right, not man made law given right.

If you dealt, consumed or purchased alcohol during prohibition, you were a criminal, now, you just work for Budweiser.

Before they decriminalized Marijuana in some places, you'd be a criminal if you ingested it, now you just like getting high after work.

You can buy pain killers from a pharmacy but you can't buy them from someone not "licensed"....that's like cutting down a tree, splitting it into firewood and saying only certain licensed people can sell firewood.

The only reason laws are passed is because they serve agendas or make money.

If "John" wanted to sell X drug, why can't he? what is the argument against that?

"Law is mind without reason" Aristotle.

For the most part I do agree with you, but without these drug laws, child drug use would sky rocket. And the suburbs would become infested with so called drugs and the scum bags envolved with them. Both of which would be detrimental to the country. I am in no way anti-drug, as everyone likes to have there fun. But there has to be a point where someone or something says no, because people always take things as far as life permits them. Peace

 

[jakellpet]

For the most part I do agree with you, but without these drug laws, child drug use would sky rocket. And the suburbs would become infested with so called drugs and the scum bags envolved with them. Both of which would be detrimental to the country. I am in no way anti-drug, as everyone likes to have there fun. But there has to be a point where someone or something says no, because people always take things as far as life permits them. Peace

That is a foolish arguement.

If kids want to score drugs they will.

They are less likely to if they are educated on the matter.

IMO the Swiss are quite progressive on a number of fronts.

 

[Trauma1]

Interesting.

Methadone is just as addictive as heroin, and the withdrawals are worse. Yet they pass that **** out to addicts here in the US

It just seems a bit odd to treat a heroin addiction with heroin. Doesn't this make them drug dealers?

There is a method to the maddness though. Methadone is used as a treatment for opiate based drug addiction due to the long half-life of the drug itself. It's easier to slowly wean people off methadone rather than a short acting opiate that will constantly initiate cravings and psychological/physiological addiction symptoms.


Making heroin readily available via prescription to drug addicts is just plain stupid, period.

 

[Rugger]

One of my good friends died from methadone overdose. ****'s ****ed uP!

 

[Fastone]

The funny thing about any of this is that there are things that people use today to get high nowadays that are much more deadly than heroin and are probably under your sink or next to your computer. And if I'm not mistaken heroin was developed to combat morphine abuse, It's all death in the long run but as someone noted, people are going to get high and in 40 years the so called "War Against Drugs" in this country hasn't put much of a dent in demand or supply, remember "Just say No"? Somehow I think problem must be the same there. I would think the prescription angle is to give the Swiss government some control over that problem .

:bruce3:

 

[Trauma1]

The funny thing about any of this is that there are things that people use today to get high nowadays that are much more deadly than heroin and are probably under your sink or next to your computer. And if I'm not mistaken heroin was developed to combat morphine abuse, It's all death in the long run but as someone noted, people are going to get high and in 40 years the so called "War Against Drugs" in this country hasn't put much of a dent in demand or supply, remember "Just say No"? Somehow I think problem must be the same there. I would think the prescription angle is to give the Swiss government some control over that problem .

:bruce3:

Enabling these people through prescription isn't going to solve anything, imo. If their angle is an attempt to decrease medicial use of heroin, it's a major fail, and they'll see that in due time. From a pure medical standpoint, feeding the addiction with more heroin is not conducive to any successful treatment of that addiction based on what i outlined above before.

I agree with you frank, for the love of god, "Just say, NO!" This country will NEVER win the war on drugs, but we can win any individual battle ourselves by just saying, NO!

 

[RenegadeRows]

I agree with you frank, for the love of god, "Just say, NO!" This country will NEVER win the war on drugs, but we can win any individual battle ourselves by just saying, NO!

qft :bling:

 

[Omen]

Enabling these people through prescription isn't going to solve anything, imo. If their angle is an attempt to decrease medicial use of heroin, it's a major fail, and they'll see that in due time. From a pure medical standpoint, feeding the addiction with more heroin is not conducive to any successful treatment of that addiction based on what i outlined above before.

I agree with you frank, for the love of god, "Just say, NO!" This country will NEVER win the war on drugs, but we can win any individual battle ourselves by just saying, NO!

Heroin prescription 'cuts costs'

There are strong reasons to support the practice of prescribing heroin to drug misusers, researchers claim.

A University of Amsterdam team says the treatment is cost-effective, even though it is expensive.

The British Medical Journal study found the cost to health services was offset by savings linked to crime reduction.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4607233.stm

http://www.naomistudy.ca/

http://www.cesda.net/downloads/lancet1.pdf

 

[lutherblsstt]

YouTube - Seattle Police Chief Says Legalize Drugs

 

[pistolgripump]

U.S. needs to just hurry up and legalize it all and start taxing it. Its not like the goverments ever gonna stop drug use anyway. We'd make so much tax money, not to mention all the money saved in the jails by not having to waste the space and three squares a day on some fool with a petty drug beat.

 

[OzzY SluGGa]

That is a foolish arguement.

If kids want to score drugs they will.

They are less likely to if they are educated on the matter.

IMO the Swiss are quite progressive on a number of fronts.

X2.....They want it they will get it. I know, i always did as a young guy. Easier than getting a farkin Pizza. At least If some things are Legal they aren't made in some bikies back yard with rat sack, detergent and all other sorts of fillers in them.

 

[Jayhawkk]

Legalizing drugs now is just asking for a **** ton of trouble. Our society isn't as small as the Swiss and other smaller countries where this can work. people get what they want regardless of the laws and making it legal just means more people will be using since the only thing that stops a lot of people from doing so in the first place is the legality of it.

I'm for de-criminalization over making it legal. It would be opening the flood gates that could never be closed again. You saw how well alcohol was able to be taken away from the people once it was part of their society. People were less active over worse issues but take away their high and all hell breaks loose.

 

[OzzY SluGGa]

Legalizing drugs now is just asking for a **** ton of trouble. Our society isn't as small as the Swiss and other smaller countries where this can work. people get what they want regardless of the laws and making it legal just means more people will be using since the only thing that stops a lot of people from doing so in the first place is the legality of it.

I'm for de-criminalization over making it legal. It would be opening the flood gates that could never be closed again. You saw how well alcohol was able to be taken away from the people once it was part of their society. People were less active over worse issues but take away their high and all hell breaks loose.

Good Point, De criminaliztion [spelling] Is more of a happy median, If such exists on this topic.

 

[lutherblsstt]

Legalizing drugs now is just asking for a **** ton of trouble. Our society isn't as small as the Swiss and other smaller countries where this can work. people get what they want regardless of the laws and making it legal just means more people will be using since the only thing that stops a lot of people from doing so in the first place is the legality of it.

Having a law on something has never solved anything. We may pat ourselves on the back and say we've done something worthwhile, but in reality laws don't prevent actions, they only criminalize. Let me ask this: do you think that if murder wasn't illegal that it would promote more murder?

I'm for de-criminalization over making it legal. It would be opening the flood gates that could never be closed again. You saw how well alcohol was able to be taken away from the people once it was part of their society. People were less active over worse issues but take away their high and all hell breaks loose.

The vast majority of drug users are just like the vast majority of alcohol users...regular people, looking for a buzz. The legalization of drugs is an eventuallity. The goverment simply won't have resources to try and incarcerate offenders anymore.

And contrary to what some of you might think, drug users actually want drugs to stay illegal. When the open market gets hold of drugs, they'll regulate them to the point where drugs will be expensive and lacking potency. Right now, drugs are strong, cheap, and widely available. Where I lived in the US liquor stores are closed on Sunday, but I bet I could find a dime bag in an hour.

People that are going to use drugs are going to use them anyway.

 

[EasyEJL]

Having a law on something has never solved anything. We may pat ourselves on the back and say we've done something worthwhile, but in reality laws don't prevent actions, they only criminalize. Let me ask this: do you think that if murder wasn't illegal that it would promote more murder?

Are you really that dense? of course it would promote more murder. if murder wasn't illegal i'd have killed you over your ridiculous racism claims.

The vast majority of drug users are just like the vast majority of alcohol users...regular people, looking for a buzz. The legalization of drugs is an eventuallity. The goverment simply won't have resources to try and incarcerate offenders anymore.

And contrary to what some of you might think, drug users actually want drugs to stay illegal. When the open market gets hold of drugs, they'll regulate them to the point where drugs will be expensive and lacking potency. Right now, drugs are strong, cheap, and widely available. Where I lived in the US liquor stores are closed on Sunday, but I bet I could find a dime bag in an hour.

People that are going to use drugs are going to use them anyway.

So legal alchohol is more expensive or less potent than illegal alchohol? are you seriously that dense? don't you know what the markup is in the chain of drug dealing? there isn't that high of a markup from raw materials to end user in any other product.


What they should do is establish a mandatory death sentence for anyone convicted assault, any crimes against persons, or any felony while under the influence of drugs. It may not stop people from using drugs, but it will stop them from assaulting others to get their fix more than once.

 

[lutherblsstt]

Are you really that dense? of course it would promote more murder.

Laws aren't at all keepers of the peace. If societal contracts were lifted, would people act fundamentally different?

Many religious people use a similar argument when justifying morality. ie You need religion to be a moral person. I maintain, and have always maintained, and hopefully will always maintain, that we need nothing more for our existence than what the universe has already provided.

So legal alchohol is more expensive or less potent than illegal alchohol? are you seriously that dense? don't you know what the markup is in the chain of drug dealing? there isn't that high of a markup from raw materials to end user in any other product.

I said " they'll regulate them to the point where drugs will be expensive and lacking potency. Right now, drugs are strong, cheap, and widely available."

Is that hard for you to understand?

 

[Jayhawkk]

Your argument holds no water. Yes, with laws lifted people would commit more of the actions that were previously illegal. Including murder. People being afraid of consequence is what keeps them from commiting a certain action. You can easily see that in how parents teach and keep their children in line.

Equally as wrong is your notion that drug users want drugs illegal because they would get their drugs cheaper and more potent without gov't regulation. People getting drugs illegally would still do the same if the new legal drugs were too expensive or weak. I'm going to bet medicinal grade pot is more potent than vyour average street dealer.

 

[lutherblsstt]

Your argument holds no water. Yes, with laws lifted people would commit more of the actions that were previously illegal. Including murder. People being afraid of consequence is what keeps them from commiting a certain action. You can easily see that in how parents teach and keep their children in line.

There is a great book on this topic called The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule

written by this guy:

YouTube - Michael Shermer on The Science of Good and Evil


What would you do if there were no Law? Would you commit robbery, rape, and murder,etc. or would you continue to be a good and moral person?

If the answer is that you would soon turn to robbery, rape, or murder, then this is a moral indictment of your character, indicating that you are not to be trusted.

If the answer is that you would continue being good and moral, then apparently you can be good without Laws. This applies to anyone.

Equally as wrong is your notion that drug users want drugs illegal because they would get their drugs cheaper and more potent without gov't regulation.

Cocaine cheaper than lager and wine as drug price falls by half
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4602051/Cocaine-cheaper-than-lager-and-wine-as-drug-price-falls-by-half.html

 

[lutherblsstt]

I would love to get the thoughts of pro-drug war people on this interview:

http://awr.dissentradio.com/09_03_16_gregory.mp3

 

[TexasTitan]

Because a lot of criminals commit crimes and the crimes are so widespread, we should give in and legalize. Great logistics there guys.

"This is hard! We should give up."

The last thing the American public needs is legal drugs.

 

[lutherblsstt]

Because a lot of criminals commit crimes and the crimes are so widespread, we should give in and legalize. Great logistics there guys.

"This is hard! We should give up."

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

great points in this piece:

http://www.drugpolicy.org/drugwar/

Excerpt:

"The war on drugs has become a war on families, a war on public health and a war on our constitutional rights.

Many of the problems the drug war purports to resolve are in fact caused by the drug war itself. So-called “drug-related” crime is a direct result of drug prohibition's distortion of immutable laws of supply and demand.

Public health problems like HIV and Hepatitis C are all exacerbated by zero tolerance laws that restrict access to clean needles. The drug war is not the promoter of family values that some would have us believe. Children of inmates are at risk of educational failure, joblessness, addiction and delinquency. Drug abuse is bad, but the drug war is worse.


The United States is now the world's largest jailer, imprisoning nearly half a million people for drug offenses alone. That's more people than Western Europe, with a bigger population, incarcerates for all offenses.

Roughly 1.5 million people are arrested each year for drug law violations - 40% of them just for marijuana possession. People suffering from cancer and other debilitating illnesses are regularly denied access to their medicine or even arrested and prosecuted for using medical marijuana. "

 

[OzzY SluGGa]

Gotta hand it to luther....Dude is under fire and keeps pumping out intelligent points. I dont know what the solution is personally, but this dude is holding his own against a few people. Gotta give it to him:bandit:

 

[EasyEJL]

Gotta hand it to luther....Dude is under fire and keeps pumping out intelligent points. I dont know what the solution is personally, but this dude is holding his own against a few people. Gotta give it to him:bandit:

But they aren't logical, he's again using a statistic to prove what he wants to prove. Does our current war on drugs lack of effectiveness mean that stopping drugs is impossible or a bad thing, or does it mean that we need to impose harsher penalties including death sentences? Or change in some other way how we do it?

By his logic, we should stop bothering to try and find a cure for any cancer (or even treat cancer) as its rarely successful that we save someone, and so we should just keep them pumped on morphine till they die.

 

[Jayhawkk]

You provided a part of a book that states that if you are good you won't do these things and if you are bad then you will... Sort of states the obvious.

When you lock your doors you're just keeping the honest man, honest. If someone wants your stuff they're going to take it regardless of what's in front of them. The point is to keep from adding to those people that are trying to take it. It's against the law to murder someone and you better believe if it became legal that there would be a lot more murder and each person would justify to themselves why it was a legit killing. Society would start moving in the direction the lack of a law allows.

In every law that has been eased or lifted you will find those trying their best to push those limits even further. If you lifted murder as a crime it would be outragious to commit even though it would be legal until people were used to seeing it happen and it was no longer a shock.

 

[lutherblsstt]

But they aren't logical, he's again using a statistic to prove what he wants to prove. Does our current war on drugs lack of effectiveness mean that stopping drugs is impossible or a bad thing,

Please show me a country now or in history where they have stopped drugs.

In just the time I’ve been an active drug war opponent, I have seen the government widen its ridiculous drug war to include a number of supposedly horrible menaces – the reefer madness de jour.

They’ve targeted Qat, a leaf that is widely chewed in East Africa and especially by Somali immigrants; GHB, a chemical that is made in everyone’s brain; ephedra, a natural stimulant that when used responsibly avoids many of the nasty side effects of caffeine. And, now, there is the scare about the "new marijuana" – salvia divinorum, a plant that virtually no one is addicted to and that very few people even find recreational.

Meanwhile, of course, tobacco claims hundreds of thousands of lives a year and alcohol causes tens of thousands of is associated with a third or half of suicides and homicides. The damage done to the system by tobacco and its high rate of addictiveness and the toxicity, neural degeneration, heart, liver, muscle birth and pancreatic problems caused by alcohol, which has a chemical withdrawal, unlike cocaine and heroin, indicates these drugs are the most dangerous in our society. Some prohibitionists believe these too should be outlawed.

That is of course the "logical" implication of drug war reasoning.

or does it mean that we need to impose harsher penalties including death sentences? Or change in some other way how we do it?

Death sentences for drugs,like Saudi Arabia?

Let me quote a man who many conservatives claim to admire,Ludwig von Mises, master Austrian economist and one of the greatest classical liberal thinkers of all time.

This is from Mises’s economic masterpiece, Human Action, written sixty years ago in 1949:


"But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments.

A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine.

And why limit the government's benevolent providence to the protection of the individual's body only?

Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs.

These fears are not merely imaginary specters terrifying secluded doctrinaires. It is a fact that no paternal government, whether ancient or modern, ever shrank from regimenting its subjects’ minds, beliefs, and opinions. If one abolishes man’s freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away. The naïve advocates of government interference with consumption delude themselves when they neglect what they disdainfully call the philosophical aspect of the problem. They unwittingly support the case of censorship, inquisition, religious intolerance, and the persecution of dissenters.

By his logic, we should stop bothering to try and find a cure for any cancer (or even treat cancer) as its rarely successful that we save someone, and so we should just keep them pumped on morphine till they die.

Faulty analogy. The drug war itself is killing people,how would trying to find a cure for cancer be killing people?

Many of the problems the drug war purports to resolve are in fact caused by the drug war itself,can you say the same of trying to find a cure for cancer?

The US imprisons nearly half a million people for drug offenses alone,has finding a cure for cancer imprisoned anyone?

Nice try though.

 

[lutherblsstt]

You provided a part of a book that states that if you are good you won't do these things and if you are bad then you will... Sort of states the obvious.

When you lock your doors you're just keeping the honest man, honest. If someone wants your stuff they're going to take it regardless of what's in front of them. The point is to keep from adding to those people that are trying to take it. It's against the law to murder someone and you better believe if it became legal that there would be a lot more murder and each person would justify to themselves why it was a legit killing. Society would start moving in the direction the lack of a law allows.

In every law that has been eased or lifted you will find those trying their best to push those limits even further. If you lifted murder as a crime it would be outragious to commit even though it would be legal until people were used to seeing it happen and it was no longer a shock.

You skipped the youtube video with the authors explanation of scientific reasons why people behave well most of the time.

It is an inner directed phenomenon,not an outer directed one where external constraints ie.laws are all that is holding people back from savage behavior.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar2gIynxedw"]YouTube - Michael Shermer on The Science of Good and Evil[/ame]

 

[EasyEJL]

Please show me a country now or in history where they have stopped drugs.

Again, same analogy, should the fact that a cure for liver cancer hasn't been created be a reason to stop looking for one?

Meanwhile, of course, tobacco claims hundreds of thousands of lives a year and alcohol causes tens of thousands of is associated with a third or half of suicides and homicides. The damage done to the system by tobacco and its high rate of addictiveness and the toxicity, neural degeneration, heart, liver, muscle birth and pancreatic problems caused by alcohol, which has a chemical withdrawal, unlike cocaine and heroin, indicates these drugs are the most dangerous in our society. Some prohibitionists believe these too should be outlawed.

That is of course the "logical" implication of drug war reasoning.

And again, I fail to see the problem with that. Particularly when people want free health care to be government provided, I see no reason for successful people who choose to live healthy lifestyles finding it repulsive to have to pay
taxes to fund the unhealthy lifestyle choices of others.

or does it mean that we need to impose harsher penalties including death sentences? Or change in some other way how we do it?

Death sentences for drugs,like Saudi Arabia?

Sure, is there higher drug usage in Los Angeles or Saudi Arabia?

Let me quote a man who many conservatives claim to admire,Ludwig von Mises, master Austrian economist and one of the greatest classical liberal thinkers of all time.

This is from Mises’s economic masterpiece, Human Action, written sixty years ago in 1949:


"But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments.

A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine.

And why limit the government's benevolent providence to the protection of the individual's body only?

Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs.

These fears are not merely imaginary specters terrifying secluded doctrinaires. It is a fact that no paternal government, whether ancient or modern, ever shrank from regimenting its subjects’ minds, beliefs, and opinions. If one abolishes man’s freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away. The naïve advocates of government interference with consumption delude themselves when they neglect what they disdainfully call the philosophical aspect of the problem. They unwittingly support the case of censorship, inquisition, religious intolerance, and the persecution of dissenters.

Again, when people expect to be able to sue for product liability, and have other's tax dollars pay for their crappy health choices, it does behoove a government to do that. It is always the tightrope line for a government, you will make some unhappy and some happy by any protections you give, or refuse to give.

Faulty analogy. The drug war itself is killing people,how would trying to find a cure for cancer be killing people?

It does, by wasting resources that could be spent elsewhere. How many millions have been spent trying to find a cure for cancer? How many starving ethiopians or palestinians could have been fed with the money being thrown away on "a cause that has never worked". So it is not a faulty analogy.

Many of the problems the drug war purports to resolve are in fact caused by the drug war itself,can you say the same of trying to find a cure for cancer?

Honestly not sure what problems the drug war itself has created, so you'd need to be specific

The US imprisons nearly half a million people for drug offenses alone,has finding a cure for cancer imprisoned anyone?

Nice try though.

cancer research isn't illegal, so nobody is in prison for it. Not sure how that helps your point

 

[lutherblsstt]

Again, same analogy, should the fact that a cure for liver cancer hasn't been created be a reason to stop looking for one?

Faulty analogy. Comparing the the Drug War (malevolent) and a the search for a cure for cancer (benevolent) are like comparing apples and oranges.

Sure, is there higher drug usage in Los Angeles or Saudi Arabia?

How about Los Angeles or Amsterdam?

Dutch rates of drug use are lower than U.S. rates in every category

[URL="http://www.drugpolicy.org/global/drugpolicyby/westerneurop/thenetherlan/"]http://www.drugpolicy.org/global/drugpolicyby/westerneurop/thenetherlan/[/URL]

Again, when people expect to be able to sue for product liability, and have other's tax dollars pay for their crappy health choices, it does behoove a government to do that. It is always the tightrope line for a government, you will make some unhappy and some happy by any protections you give, or refuse to give.

The Tenth Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This effectively means that if the Constitution does not grant the power to the federal government over something, then it is for the states and people to decide. Some people here would say this is the most important amendment. If the federal government obeyed it, the entire drug war as we know it would be impossible

The Ninth Amendment says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

This means that just because a personal right is not specifically mentioned does not mean the federal government can infringe upon it. Certainly the rights to use and sell drugs are being attacked in this very way.

And in moral terms, this is what the drug war means. It is the denial of self-ownership. Someone who can’t decide what to put in himself does not own himself. The logic of the drug war is that the government owns you.

We look at all the rights trampled in the name of the drug war and we see how all rights are connected. People are denied the right to self-medicate and take the treatment they desire. Not just in regard to illegal drugs either, but those that are regulated.

The Food and Drug Administration is tied at the hip to the Drug Enforcement Administration. The pharmaceutical interests who control federal prescription drug policy have a stake in maintaining a control on what drugs people can do. The FDA, by keeping life-saving drugs off the market, has forced tens and tens of thousand Americans to die prematurely. Mary Ruwart puts the number in the millions.

It does, by wasting resources that could be spent elsewhere. How many millions have been spent trying to find a cure for cancer? How many starving ethiopians or palestinians could have been fed with the money being thrown away on "a cause that has never worked". So it is not a faulty analogy.

Well then,using your "logic" spending money on vacations kills people as well,they are not a necessity, and how many starving ethiopians or palestinians could have been fed with the money being thrown away?

Honestly not sure what problems the drug war itself has created, so you'd need to be specific

Public health problems like HIV and Hepatitis C are all exacerbated by zero tolerance laws that restrict access to clean needles.

Roughly 1.5 million people are arrested each year for drug law violations - 40% of them just for marijuana possession.

Children of inmates are at risk of educational failure, joblessness, addiction and delinquency.

People suffering from cancer and other debilitating illnesses are regularly denied access to their medicine or even arrested and prosecuted for using medical marijuana

cancer research isn't illegal, so nobody is in prison for it. Not sure how that helps your point

I said "The US imprisons nearly half a million people for drug offenses alone,has finding a cure for cancer imprisoned anyone?"

Point being,the war on drugs and its affects are very different from the race to find a cure for cancer, this is why your analogy is faulty.