: : Cynic: more importantly by my standard, enforcement of drug laws is unjustifiably expensive. : attentat: it more than pays for itself with all the free (or nearly free) labor it leases out to corporations for the prison-idustrial complex
Cynic: No, it doesn't. That means that corporations can reap the profits created by a system the public is forced to fund with their taxes, then sell us the merchandise the prisoners produce at the same high rate they always have. Drug enforcement is expensive, period.
If you don't believe it then please examine the statistics regarding percentages of prison convictions on drug charges. Drug convictions have led to crowded prisons, and requests by the government for more money from the citizens to build more.
------
Cynic: : Then again, I have difficulty giving assent to the utter legalization of drugs, because I have observed many individuals who lack the sense not to abuse alcohol or cigarettes, even though by their age the law insists that they have such faculties. True enough, Big Brother can stifle responsible citizens in many ways- but the world is also full of more than enough idiots who don't know any better. If Little Brother is an absolute cretin, Big Brother might certainly know better!
: attentat: are you listening to yourself? more repressive regimes have been justified because the people under that dictatorship "just didn't know any better." the Soviet Union, Mexico, just about every colony under the English flag, your logic was also used by the US to justify their repressive policy in Central and South America, the list could go on and on. why is it any of your business if a person decides to "have too much fun" as long as the only person he might be doing any harm to is him/herself? who sets the standard for what is considered to be accepted behavior? obviously you, from the look of your post.
Cynic: Yeah, I can tell when a person who likes his beer has become an alcoholic, even if the alcoholic can't. And I can tell when a drug user is doing too much when they can't ever seem to help themselves from wanting it. I'm speaking of substance addiction, my friend.
In fact to be brutally honest, I don't care how many mistakes have been committed in the past because someone thought they knew better than another person did but really did not. I am authoritarian when it comes to the truth, because the truth doesn't care a wit about what people think- and it is easy to see that addicts would not want to be slaves to the substances they ingest. More likely there is something else wrong in their lives that makes them want drugs that badly to cope. Or maybe they made the mistake of taking them too often and cannot escape the cycle of self-abuse. Show me a person who likes to be a slave, Attentat, please.
It's not facist to take away one's freedom to destroy oneself. It's charitable. I think if everything were going great with one's life they wouldn't be trapped in the throngs of addiction in the first place- by illegitimizing their behavior we can get these people the help they need. And yes, it is clear when people cross the line between use and abuse. If you wouldn't be comfortable with that responsibilty then don't seek it. I think anyone with a modicum of common sense could do it fine. A system that doesn't care, and lets the individual destroy him or herself when their outward behavior is a cry for help is negligent.
-------
: : Then I'm all for telling them what to do. That may sound contradictory, but it is how I function. Both you and I can tell the difference between one who uses drugs and one who overuses them. More often than not the latter has problems related to his or her drug use that compound the necessity for regulation.
: attentat: your proposed drug policy would only serve to further marginalize the user (seperate him/her from society), and studies done independantly by the US and Dutch governments have shown that this approach only creates more problems than it solves. By driving the user farther and farther away from functional, mainstream society, you only push him towards more "undesirable" subcultures that exist in the margins.
Cynic: I didn't say I was for incarceration. Treatment was better. Do you really mean to tell me an individual feels more functional being a crack-whore in an alley than being assisted in conquering that habit so they can move on and have a beautiful life? If that is the implication of the study you cited, disregard it now. It's inhumane. I never said we should put people away, but do insist we should try and help them break the cycle they've become trapped in.
-------
: : Regardless, however, by your own account it seems we'd agree that you should be free to do drugs if you so choose. And I bid you enjoy them, but please be careful not to enjoy them, well, too much!
: attentat: again, who sets the standard? the state? (do you really have that much faith in our justice system, or should i start naming cases where it has failed miserablely?) you?
Cynic: Here's the standard: That threshold at which the degree of harm caused becomes far greater than the pleasure received. Is that too subjective for you, or do you prefer a rigid inflexibility in your laws?
None.
