Heroin deaths surpass gun homicides

[frenchiectfd2203]

So are you saying all addicts are also criminals as well. Me as well as a bunch of other as you stated "junkies" have used for long periods while never committing a single crime other than using the drug itself. I work for a living always have, I support my kids & at the time my own habit, if I couldn't do both my kids came 1st & I went sick or I would go out & make money for my habit by doing actual labor not robbey people breaking into houses ect.. You seem to be a stereotype of sorts, all addicts are criminals. Cant they just be people with problems that you cant comprehend has you haven't been thru anything close to what that "junkie" has. Like that girl that was molested for years by her own dad & can only dull the pain as its truly never gone or forgot or by the guy that was picked on his entire life & beat everyday by his father who thinks their is not a single person in the world that cares for or about him. The list goes on man I understand some or most people here have had a pretty sweet life but don't kid yourself not everyone does & they have problems that you couldn't comprehend how they feel as you haven't walked a block in their shoes. I have met numerous "junkies" and 95% are just f****d up in the head from what they have been thru while some do use to get "high" a majority don't, they use to forget to dull that pain.

You do realize that you were using an ILLEGAL drug. ?? And the reason you don't have a "criminal record" is because you never got caught. A lot of us on this forum would have a criminal record had we gotten caught...

 

[frenchiectfd2203]

And just wait till this new crap from Russia comes into town. It eats the skin from the inside, great stuff and cheap from what I hear. Good luck with that!!

 

[Bill of Rights]

I think the point is that the law is punishing something that perhaps it should not. If a person does something that harms no one, should they be punished? And if the person only harms himself, is he not already punished? Further, if his body and his life belong exclusively to him, why is it government's place to impose punishment at all?

Dont get me wrong, there are lots of things I wish we'd never figured out how to do, and high on that list are "grow tobacco" and "distill/ferment alcohol", but now that we know how to do them, a free person should have the choice to do as he wishes, provided the rest of us don't have to pay to save his dumb/drunk/stoned a**.

Blessings,
Bill

I never made a claim about bad/evil, or good.
Mine merely made a statement about "criminal" as someone that breaks the law.
In your example, the person would be a criminal on the 30th, and not on the 1st.

 

[bwframe]

How wise is the overall idea of humans altering their mental processes with chemicals?

 

[actaeon277]

I think the point is that the law is punishing something that perhaps it should not. If a person does something that harms no one, should they be punished? And if the person only harms himself, is he not already punished? Further, if his body and his life belong exclusively to him, why is it government's place to impose punishment at all?

Dont get me wrong, there are lots of things I wish we'd never figured out how to do, and high on that list are "grow tobacco" and "distill/ferment alcohol", but now that we know how to do them, a free person should have the choice to do as he wishes, provided the rest of us don't have to pay to save his dumb/drunk/stoned a**.

Blessings,
Bill

Then, we work to change the law.
Until then, it is still the law, a person that breaks the law is still a criminal.
It's literally the definition of a criminal.

 

[Mgderf]

Then, we work to change the law.
Until then, it is still the law, a person that breaks the law is still a criminal.
It's literally the definition of a criminal.

I agree.
Thus any person present within the borders of the United States, under anything other than 100% legal circumstances, is by definition a criminal.

I wish our federal government could figure out that little tidbit.

 

[Fargo]

Before we get too carried away here, I would wager that every person in this thread has at some point done something which would technically be criminal.

 

[frenchiectfd2203]

Before we get too carried away here, I would wager that every person in this thread has at some point done something which would technically be criminal.

PROVE IT!!!

 

[Mgderf]

Before we get too carried away here, I would wager that every person in this thread has at some point done something which would technically be criminal.

Nobody saw me, there are no pictures, deny, deny, deny...

 

[Bill of Rights]

Depends how how deep down the rabbit hole you want to go. Caffeine, alcohol, and for that matter, oxygen are all in some way and to some degree psychoactive. So are the various neuro transmitters that govern every body process.

if the criterion is that it "alters mental processes with chemicals", that bar is set very low.

Blessings,
Bill

How wise is the overall idea of humans altering their mental processes with chemicals?

 

[CavMedic]

I work on the SW side of Indy. We have the largest amount of Heroin OD's by far. Every Officer on this side of town carries Narcan. And almost every person that we deal with was on prescription pain meds and then abrubtly stopped. That is a recipe for disaster. It is as much an issue of prescription meds being pushed by idiot Dr's as it the illegal drugs.

 

[Denny347]

How wise is the overall idea of humans altering their mental processes with chemicals?

It's not. My homeless alcoholic father is a prime example of killing off brain cells since teenage years.

 

[steveh_131]

Your 1-4 are benefits but with them would come consequences.

Prove it. Historical evidence says otherwise.

There are plenty of addicts to go around. While legalization may not see abuse increase dramatically I don't believe we would see it decrease dramatically either.

Many people who discuss legalization bring up that it would be cheaper to provide "free" treatment than to incarcerate abusers. While this may be true it does not justify hoisting the problems of some onto the shoulders of others.

This is the United States of America. If we were to get legalization pushed through without requiring free treatment it wouldn't be two years before Sarah Mclaughlin had commercials on tv depicting the sad eyes of addicts and the liberals would be attempting to guilt the country in to taking care of these "victims".

They're already pushing that. I don't see legalization changing it. Even if it did, the costs would be far less than the costs of law enforcement and imprisonment.

With as little actual punishment as addicts receive now, how will decriminalizing make it better for them? They are still going to buy the cheapest crap they can find, and that is not going to be at the strip mall dispensary. It will still be from a sketchy drug dealer with who knows what inside it.

It makes life better for the rest of us. Not them. The government can't make anything better for them. They have to do that themselves.

Depends how how deep down the rabbit hole you want to go. Caffeine, alcohol, and for that matter, oxygen are all in some way and to some degree psychoactive. So are the various neuro transmitters that govern every body process.

if the criterion is that it "alters mental processes with chemicals", that bar is set very low.

Exactly. Let's not go down that rabbit hole at all. Let's prosecute people for causing harm to others. A nice clear line for everybody.

 

[BugI02]

"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?"

 

[Fargo]

"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?"

I don't think Steve is arguing that one should consume drugs, rather he is arguing that it is not the states place to tell people whether they may or may not. I disagree with his conclusion both factually and morally, but have never thought that he was pushing drug use.

 

[Bill of Rights]

...
Exactly. Let's not go down that rabbit hole at all. Let's prosecute people for causing harm to others. A nice clear line for everybody.

Now you're going to get arguments about what defines harm. Real, demonstrable, physical damage? Is someone harmed by emotional investment into someone who proves him/herself unworthy? And how many levels of harm are in between those two points on the continuum?

OTOH, if I know bwframe , I'm thinking it possible that that was meant as hyperbole.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[steveh_131]

I don't think Steve is arguing that one should consume drugs, rather he is arguing that it is not the states place to tell people whether they may or may not. I disagree with his conclusion both factually and morally, but have never thought that he was pushing drug use.

True.

Real, demonstrable, physical damage?

Yes.

Is someone harmed by emotional investment into someone who proves him/herself unworthy?

Not in any way that government regulation should recognize.

If you think you have a case for some sort of emotional damage then take it to civil court.

 

[bwframe]

I would argue that chemicals taken to specifically alter one's mental state FOR RECREATION are a problem. The poor mentality that this is a proper form of recreation has been bolstered for hundreds of years. Yes, I am talking about alcohol also.

Why not try to make bad habits frowned upon by society? I think we can point to a fairly long term success that is not quite yet complete in the use of tobacco as an example?

 

[phylodog]

They're already pushing that. I don't see legalization changing it. Even if it did, the costs would be far less than the costs of law enforcement and imprisonment.

Full stop. This is where I get off of the train. I'm all for fixing problems if we are in fact fixing problems. Drugs being illegal isn't a problem for me and if I'm going to pay taxes out the ass related to drugs I prefer that money go to keeping addicts away from me. Bribe me by reducing taxes to get me to go along with legalization? Fine. Attempt to convince me that legalization is the right thing to do and I should be paying for addiction treatment for other people and you're completely wasting your time. If that's the option I'm fine with the way things are.

 

[phylodog]

I don't think Steve is arguing that one should consume drugs, rather he is arguing that it is not the states place to tell people whether they may or may not. I disagree with his conclusion both factually and morally, but have never thought that he was pushing drug use.

It isn't the state's place to tell people to pay for other people's **** either. I'm all for fixing problems, call me selfish but I'd like mine fixed and legalizing drugs doesn't fix any for me.