So you want to legalize drugs eh?

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

Meth?? Things sure have changed.

In MY day, before went to the club, we did some blow. Then on the way to the club. When we GOT to the club, while we were IN the club, outside the club, leaving the club and on the way home from the club.....

HAHAHA.


i don't think cocaine is in the same class as crack or meth........

[atotaltotalfan2001]

I would be one of those people who would want to block some funding.

I understand that addiction is an illness. That said, unlike many illnesses, people do have a choice on if they want risk the high probability of becoming addicted to hard drugs.

Because of this I don't think people who use (hard) drugs are immoral. I just think many are just selfish morons. I am not talking about the person who becomes addicted to heroin because they had a stupid doctor prescribe them pain killers and then cut them off. I am talking about a relatively healthy person deciding one day it would be fun to do just a little bit of meth before they head out to the club. That is a choice and choices have repercussions. Unlike the person who tries to live a healthy life and winds up with a brain tumor or leukemia.

I have a friend who is a very strong libertarian and this is where our conversation always forks. He thinks people should be able to do whatever they want, like hard drugs, and on this we agree. However, when I say that personal freedom should not create a community responsibility like providing rehab for morons who make bad life choices, he does not have much of a counter.

Also, I don't think it's fair or right to lump people with an alcohol addiction in with someone who has a drug addiction. Over 87% of Americans have drank at some point in their lifetime and almost 60% have drank within the last month. Of this group only 7% would qualify to have an Alcohol Use Disorder, which is not even an addiction. Addiction is much less.

On the other hand, 93% of meth or heroin users are not able to just casually try these drugs from time to time like alcohol. Going into it, the odds are obvious that you will have a high probability of addiction. So why should I spend resources on these people when we don't have enough money being spent on other medical issues? We shouldn't.

Where did you get the statistic of 93 percent of hard drug users not being able to casually try them w/o addiction? I've never read a percentage nearly that high -- the addiction rate is more like 10 percent, and typically involves people who -- like alcoholics -- are self medicating to cover up other problems, like mood and personality disorders.

You're making addiction into a question of will power, and assuming addicts somehow knew in advance that they could prevent the disease. I can tell you for certain that is almost never the case.

Addiction is an illness that tries to convince you you're not sick, right into the grave. I see it a lot and only a few survive and go on with their lives -- especially w/o treatment. I hate the thought of legalizing drugs because it makes them so much more accessible to potentially vulnerable people. And I know the government will never approve corresponding treatment because so much of the public is like you -- relegating the disease to moral failing.

[gorja]

The National Institute on Drug Abuse estimates that nearly one-fourth (23 percent) of people who try heroin will become addicted.
https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/d...ed-first-time/

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/heroin

[atotaltotalfan2001]

The National Institute on Drug Abuse estimates that nearly one-fourth (23 percent) of people who try heroin will become addicted.
https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/d...ed-first-time/

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/heroin

Good sites. Thanks.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

Where did you get the statistic of 93 percent of hard drug users not being able to casually try them w/o addiction? I've never read a percentage nearly that high -- the addiction rate is more like 10 percent, and typically involves people who -- like alcoholics -- are self medicating to cover up other problems, like mood and personality disorders.

It's not a stat. It's a personal comparison of meth and alcoholic. The point was meth comes with much, much, much greater risks than beer.

You're making addiction into a question of will power, and assuming addicts somehow knew in advance that they could prevent the disease. I can tell you for certain that is almost never the case.

I am not.

I am talking about the choice before initial consumption. You don't just get an addiction to meth without first trying meth. You don't 'catch' an addiction to smack like you do a cold.

Addiction is an illness that tries to convince you you're not sick, right into the grave. I see it a lot and only a few survive and go on with their lives -- especially w/o treatment. I hate the thought of legalizing drugs because it makes them so much more accessible to potentially vulnerable people. And I know the government will never approve corresponding treatment because so much of the public is like you -- relegating the disease to moral failing.

If having to pick and picking money to go to other things than helping a meth addict kick their habit, a habit they got because they wanted to have some fun and if those other things are saving innocent people. Hell yes. And twice on Sunday.

It's not a moral failing. It's about stupidity and selfishness. I like letting Darwin win.

[WNYresident]

It's not a moral failing. It's about stupidity and selfishness. I like letting Darwin win.

It's like electricity, a light socket and stupidity.

Let us say a new fad starts where people would stick their finger into a light bulb socket to see how long they could do it. Each time they did it would damage their body a little but they liked the tingle they got. They also ended up with burnt finger tips and hands. Catch is once they do it they want to do it more even though it is leaving burns. It becomes addicting. A month after the fad starts the hospitals notice people coming in with burns on their hands that need treatment. They go no money because they spent it on more lamps and their electric bill is high

So who do you blame?

The company that produced the electricity?

The company that produced the socket?

Do you blame the store that sold the lamp?

Could you sue the people that hung the electric lines that connect the house to the electric grid?

Or

Do you blame the person stupid enough to start sticking their fingers into the socket in the first place?

Who do you blame?

How would one fix this issue?

Warning labels on the socket?
Do you make the socket idiot proof?
Do you start up a 611 telephone number people can call for "Electricity awareness help"?

Do you force insurance companies to cover the cost of the burns even though they are self induced from the start? Do you start up educational programs in schools warning kids not to stick their fingers into bulb sockets?

Or do you offer socket clinics where people who are addicted can stick their fingers into bulb sockets while under someone's supervision?

Do you make electricity illegal? or do you figure out how to make money off the issue to cover the cost of your government friends and family plans? Like cigarettes. They are addicting to some and it's been pretty much proven to cause cancer. Who doesn't agree with me so far? Instead of pulling them off the market or making them illegal to sell the "government sector" just adds a very high tax to each pack. If the "government" can profit from cigs it seems to overlook the cost created by the negative health issues cigarettes create.

Or do you just let the stupid people slowly burn their fingers off until they have nothing left to stick into the sockets?

[buffy]

.......