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 just seems a bit odd to treat a heroin addiction with heroin. Doesn't this make them drug dealers?
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?
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.
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
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 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:
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!![]()
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.
Invalid Link Removed
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Are you really that dense? of course it would promote more murder.
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.
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.
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."
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?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.
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.
Please show me a country now or in history where they have stopped drugs.
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.
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.
Again, same analogy, should the fact that a cure for liver cancer hasn't been created be a reason to stop looking for one?
Sure, is there higher drug usage in Los Angeles or Saudi Arabia?
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.
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.
Honestly not sure what problems the drug war itself has created, so you'd need to be specific
cancer research isn't illegal, so nobody is in prison for it. Not sure how that helps your point