Quote:
Originally Posted by 1958Bassman  I don't remember hearing/seeing anyone discussing the reasons people use drugs and alcohol, other than addiction. What are they escaping, numbing, avoiding or blotting out of their memory? I have known people who used more of their drug of choice when they were reacting to something (which I think is a REALLY bad reason) and some just forgot to stop. Some got into one drug or another because of peer pressure and some just found that they really, really liked being high. Several of these people are no longer among the living. |
I think people use drugs for a lot of reasons. Some need to escape, or numb the pain of something, some want to feel something. For many it's a social thing, for others it's just fun.
I get the impression that it's not a widely shared view, but personally I don't see drug use as being different to any other recreational activity. You do something you enjoy, and in doing so take a calculated risk, as well as accept that it might have consequences and take a toll on you body.
I believe we should take measures to ensure that this risk is minimised across the board, much like we do with any other high or higher risk activity, but I don't agree that it should be prohibited. We can educate people to wear safety gear on a motorbike, we can ensure that the bike is built to quality standards and we can ensure that the rider is competent before they give it a go, I think the same idea should be applied to drugs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1958Bassman The lost productivity due to work absenteeism, foggy minds/making bad decisions, "accidents" and medical care needed for liver transplants, etc is in the hundreds of Billions of dollars, annually. |
Exactly, among other expenses. Currently those drug users put no money back into the economy via taxation to help cover those costs. They simply provide even more costs by having to be policed, and when caught more again with costs of processing and likely eventual incarceration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1958Bassman Re" the second speaker's comments- what the hell is an "innocent victim" of rat poison or fiberglass being put in cocaine? They should realize the risks going in. That's just acting like a victim. Drugs are illegal and when people are engaged in illegal activities, the risks increase. |
They do, but I believe the government should be responsible for regulating and ensuring the quality and safety of these products exactly the same way they do with any other drug, or any food product, or any motor vehicle.
If you can minimise the risk for people, the end result (from a purely selfish perspective) is less people costing the government money when it comes to medical treatment etc. as well as less chance of these people causing harm to others around them, which is directly beneficial to the taxpayer.
In my opinion it's more to do with saving lives over dollars, but that's just my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1958Bassman What jobs will all of the drug enforcement agency employees be able to find? The unemployment that will result from stopping the war instantly will be crippling. OTOH, border patrol would be a real possibility. |
While this is certainly a concern, I don't think it really warrants the continued arrests and burdens on the taxation system, arresting people (especially if you acknowledge they are not really doing anything wrong) just to keep other people employed doesn't really seem like a very good idea. I'm sure the DEA could use their expertise and manpower in other areas to greater benefit. In the long run, hundreds or even thousands of prison guards start to lose jobs as prison occupancy dwindles, is that a bad thing?
If we stopped war all together, all the soldiers would be out of jobs. Unfortunate for them, but I think the results (the prevention of loss of life in particular) more than justify having to find alternative employment for some people.
