Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Nov 18, 2013 in Philosophy | 11 comments

Leave drug users and dealers alone

My fellow SINner James has a post on the war on drugs in which he says:

Nobody is seriously suggesting that we leave drug users and dealers alone.

Well, I am. What I do with my body is my business, not any Government’s.

Government should stop interfering with people’s lives and telling us what to do, or how to live, or what our preferences should be. As long as I’m not hurting anyone but myself, I should be able to do whatever I see fit.

  • SmilodonsRetreat

    Who decides?

    If you are a parent and are addicted to a drug, is that hurting someone else or not?

    I’m admittedly torn by this issue. The War on Drugs is an utter waste of money, time, and taxable revenue. Then again, humans, being human, have rather poor self-restraint skills and other mental issues that seem to encourage addiction and self-destructive behavior (to the determent of people around them).

    • http://de-avanzada.blogspot.com/ Ðavid A. Osorio S

      “Who decides?”

      Each one.

      “is that hurting someone else or not?”

      It depends. You’re the only responsible for your emotions, so if it breaks your heart to see your dad using, that’s your problem. My mom “is hurt” by my atheism.

      “self-destructive behavior (to the determent of people around them)”

      But only drugs are being forbidden. That’s a double standard, right there.

      • SmilodonsRetreat

        First and I continue to say this. I agree with you. There are many reasons to not have the war on drugs.

        But there are cases where drug use directly harms others, especially the children of drug using parents. The question is, It is still OK? That’s the point I’m trying to get across to you. There are direct harms.

        If personal freedom is more important than safety for those who are unable to care for themselves, then fine. But I think anyone who makes that kind of blanket statement is not considering the effects on a certain group of people… the children of drug users.

        Is it right? Who knows. It’s an unsolvable moral dilemma. At least, it’s insolvable for me, because personal freedom stops at the moment someone else is harmed by a person’s actions. I’m asking you to consider this issue. If you choose not to, then that’s fine… for you. It’s not fine for me.

        As far as the rest, if you want to hold people accountable for their actions, their lies, or whatever, then hold them accountable. I’ll stand right beside you.

        • http://de-avanzada.blogspot.com/ Ðavid A. Osorio S

          “If personal freedom is more important than safety for those who are unable to care for themselves, then fine”

          I don’t think anyone is making such a blanket statement. I know I’m not. There are and should be child services willing to take away children from possibly harmful environments – like drug-addict parents, for example.

  • kraut2

    “have rather poor self-restraint skills and other mental issues that
    seem to encourage addiction and self-destructive behavior (to the
    determent of people around them).”

    If that is your argument, then lets build camps to house and supervise all those that by some governmental degree are deem to be unfit to care for themselves.
    That argument flies straight into the face of the idea of self determination, individuality, personal responsibility and is the argument brought forth by all authoritarian governments worldwide and history deep to justify their rule by suppressing the idea of democracy and personal freedom.

    I happen to agree with most of your posts, here I have to say: fuck you and fuck you hard.

    America and not this nation alone went wrong with homeland security type laws to replace freedom with security. One more step to authoritarianism. But the first step to gain control over the population was the idiotic war on drugs, costly, inefficient, a bolster to law enforcements worst habits and tendencies, costly and a waste of resources.

    What for fuck sake has the war on drug done to avoid drug use by minors? Nothing, absolutely nothing, and it is by now clear that the decriminalization and the partial or full legalizing of the trade with accompanying taxation whose proceeds then can be funneled into treatment support has been much more effective.

    What difference is there between the once outlawed trade in alcohol and the still outlawed trade in recreational drugs?

    Anybody who still supports despite the overwhelming evidence this utterly miserable and failed criminalization of recreational drugs shows a denial of evidence that is more in line with religious convictions, and is appropriately in line with the religious right and its offshoots.

    • SmilodonsRetreat

      I admitted I’m torn on this issue. Again, I ask, who decides?

      Someone has to decide when someone is hurting others than just themselves. Who else can? Do we make a global regulation or leave it to the capriciousness of local officials?

      I totally agree 100% that the war on drugs is an utter and complete failure. As I said, the US is leaving lots of tax dollars on the table and ignoring the benefits of a regulated recreational drug industry.

      But we have to discuss the implications of allowed recreational drugs and a failure to do that is no different from a knee jerk response to allow freedoms no matter the cost to the individual and the society. I’m not saying that we can’t allow recreational drug use, but that we need to talk about it.

      I was trying to initiate a discussion. That’s all.

      • Peter

        If Justin Trudeau becomes our next PM he’s on record of legalizing weed. About time and take it out the hands of predatory dealers and collect the taxes.

        • http://de-avanzada.blogspot.com/ Ðavid A. Osorio S

          And do you have any kind of accountability for PMs (and their promises) there?

          • Peter

            Yes, in a Parliamentary Democracy unless a party receives a majority they can be defeated by a
            no-confidence motion. If a party has a majority public opinion holds them accountable. For instance, yesterday Canada had four by-elections to fill vacant seats. In every one the Liberals saw their vote increase dramatically, winning two, and the governing Conservatives, with a majority, saw their percentages shrink. Opinion polls for over a year show the Conservatives will lose the next election to the Trudeau Liberals. That’s accountability. But, legalizing marijuana is a side issue and majority of Canadians support it and it will likely be a non-issue in the next campaign. The biggest problem is all the street and designer drugs out there with distribution controlled by bikers and Asian gangs for the most part.

      • http://de-avanzada.blogspot.com/ Ðavid A. Osorio S

        “US is leaving lots of tax dollars on the table and ignoring the benefits of a regulated recreational drug industry”

        Civil liberties and individual freedoms should not depend on economic matters.

    • http://de-avanzada.blogspot.com/ Ðavid A. Osorio S

      I completely agree!