Words simply fail me-

[Gn2Dlnd]

Vancouver Police Chief Jamie Graham is among supporters who say the heroin giveaway will let junkies shoot up without having to resort to theft or prostitution to buy their drugs. Breaking that cycle of crime, they argue, is the first step toward turning an addict's life around.

“I’m not a medical expert, this is not my field. I'm an expert in public safety," Graham said. "And if this will help reduce the crime rate — I'm all for it."

Good thing you don't have to pay taxes in Canada.

[Tref]

Originally Posted by Gn2Dlnd

Good thing you don't have to pay taxes in Canada. Toot!

I assume, the clinic that serves up the doojee will also serve up a heaping loving cup of aid and comfort. I am talking -- a safe environment that could get the junky off the drugs and back into our neighborhoods - a healthy, hard working, sociopath.

I say, let's make the P-funk legal. Jimmy the flea powder to the masses and see what stir's up, dig? Caballo is what caballo does.

Not for me though. Heaven's no. I could never handle something as intense as heroin. I would crumble and loose all my basic motor skills. I'd probably do something stupid like run out into traffic, or take up coin collecting.

I leave you with this erroneous quote:

"Who lives longer? the man who takes heroin for two years and dies, or a man who lives on roast beef, water and potatoes 'till 95? One passes his 24 months in eternity. All the years of the beefeater are lived only in time"
Aldous Huxley

[scaeagles]

I've been thinking about this more and more and the issue of personal responsibility.

I am responsible in my finances and I am investing for retirement. However, I am forced to pay into a social security system that will probably pay me (assuming I get anything) around 1% interest. I am forced to pay into this system because it is basically a government endorsed and enforced pyramid scheme, so i have to pay in so that others who have paid in before get theirs.

What is the parallel?

Why should i be forced to pay into a broken system because others have perhaps not had the foresight or even the ability to save for old age? Should I not be permitted to opt out - as members of the House and Senate are, I believe - taking my chances and getting nothing out of the system?

I am not responsible for the poor financial decisions of those who have come before me in not saving. I am not responsible for the process that got SS started in the first place.

The government has stolen my money for something that was deemed best for society. If any private company ran their retirement plan like this, the CEO and every board member would be in prison, or at least on trial.

Keeping drugs illegal is deemed as best for society. While I am certain that there are those that can (and do) use these illegal substances in a responsible manner, there are tose who will simply have no control.

So, are we responsible as a society for those who would make poor decisions simply because others would not? I don't know the answer. But there are a hell of a lot of government programs out there designed to limit or even take away personal responsibility. The examples are limitless. Am I responsible for woman who has four children by four different men and gets welfare? Well, it has been deemed as being best for society for the rest of us to pay for her irresponsible behavior. Why should we legislate to protect her from her bad decisions?

If we truly want to go the route of libertarian self reliance and responsibility, I can see the benefits for those that are responsible. I see perhaps some societal disaster because of those that are not. This would certainly shrink the size and scope of government, and that's fine with me. But if we're going to legalize drugs because it's an issue of personal responsibility, then let's take out all the government laws, rules, and regulations that protect people from themselves.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

If we truly want to go the route of libertarian self reliance and responsibility, I can see the benefits for those that are responsible. I see perhaps some societal disaster because of those that are not. This would certainly shrink the size and scope of government, and that's fine with me. But if we're going to legalize drugs because it's an issue of personal responsibility, then let's take out all the government laws, rules, and regulations that protect people from themselves.

Well stated.....Hear, Hear!

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Keeping drugs illegal is deemed as best for society.

Ah, but I disagree that it's best for society. In my opinion and observation, as I've stated over and over again, keeping it illegal has created far more problems than it ever prevented or solved. So muddying the waters with, "Well, if you are okay with SS being used for the benefit of society, why not drug laws," doesn't quite work.

[blueerica]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Ah, but I disagree that it's best for society. In my opinion and observation, as I've stated over and over again, keeping it illegal has created far more problems than it ever prevented or solved. So muddying the waters with, "Well, if you are okay with SS being used for the benefit of society, why not drug laws," doesn't quite work.

I guess the real question is: Are drug laws really benefitting society?

I think the point's been beaten in, and it's pretty tough to change people's minds on it. I guess that's why I rarely participate in here... Hmmm...

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Ah, but I disagree that it's best for society. In my opinion and observation, as I've stated over and over again, keeping it illegal has created far more problems than it ever prevented or solved. So muddying the waters with, "Well, if you are okay with SS being used for the benefit of society, why not drug laws," doesn't quite work.

I disagree that SS has been beneficial to society, but that's another story.

GD, while the problems with the current system are undeniable, I think it is impossible to predict all of the problems that would arise from legalization. I have listed many that I do no think are far fetched whatsoever, and I am certain there are those that I have not even considered.

Legalization is no panacea, and is at best a trade off of problem for problem. For someone who can be (or currently is) responsible in their drug use, it is logical to conclude that they would prefer the legal route. We just disgaree on whether legalization is better for society than keeping them illegal. I would suggest that there must be some sort of compromise to keep the non-violent user out of prison.

[blueerica]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I disagree that SS has been beneficial to society, but that's another story.

GD, while the problems with the current system are undeniable, I think it is impossible to predict all of the problems that would arise from legalization. I have listed many that I do no think are far fetched whatsoever, and I am certain there are those that I have not even considered.

Legalization is no panacea, and is at best a trade off of problem for problem. For someone who can be (or currently is) responsible in their drug use, it is logical to conclude that they would prefer the legal route. We just disgaree on whether legalization is better for society than keeping them illegal. I would suggest that there must be some sort of compromise to keep the non-violent user out of prison.

Circumstantial penalties?

I wonder how easily that could translate to a prosecution/defense...

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

But if we're going to legalize drugs because it's an issue of personal responsibility, then let's take out all the government laws, rules, and regulations that protect people from themselves.

Ok.