01-08-2006, 07:36 PM
rob banzai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>The average drug user is frequently
> a drug abuser because that is the nature of the
> addictive and destructive properties of drugs.
>
> So my point is that when he says "as long as it is
> reponsible use" is ridiculous because the vast
> majority of druggies using meth, crack, etc are
> NOT using it responsibly. They are using it and
> then acting in socially unacceptable ways. This
> includes non-violent stuff like stealing to
> support the addiction as well as the awful violent
> side.
>
Got some numbers on that? The "vast majority of drug users" that you know about are crime statistics. It is entirely possible, even likely, that ones who use responsibly don't get caught, and don't get counted.
> At the same time it is a fantasy to think that
> alcohol usage is not like drug usage. It might be
> less addictive but it is still teribly destructive
> on the whole. The legality of it gives it a veneer
> of acceptability but it costs society far more
> than it gives back.
As the author points out, the Volstead Act was a national disaster. Prohibiting the use of alcohol did more damage to communities than alcohol.
>
> The biggest difference is in the addictiveness of
> drugs and the severity of the effects. I don't
> care how addictive nicotine is, people don't have
> a cigarette and then feel that the spider people
> are coming for them and they need to burn the
> house down.
>
> "Responsible use" of drugs like crack, meth, coke
> is a fantasy.
How do you know? "User" is not synonymous with "addict".
Other countries seem to get along pretty well without the (almost) universal prohibition on recreational drugs imposed in the US.
Throughout the EU the trend is towards decriminalization, or relaxed enforcement of laws against the use of illicit drugs.
-------------------------------------------------------
>The average drug user is frequently
> a drug abuser because that is the nature of the
> addictive and destructive properties of drugs.
>
> So my point is that when he says "as long as it is
> reponsible use" is ridiculous because the vast
> majority of druggies using meth, crack, etc are
> NOT using it responsibly. They are using it and
> then acting in socially unacceptable ways. This
> includes non-violent stuff like stealing to
> support the addiction as well as the awful violent
> side.
>
Got some numbers on that? The "vast majority of drug users" that you know about are crime statistics. It is entirely possible, even likely, that ones who use responsibly don't get caught, and don't get counted.
> At the same time it is a fantasy to think that
> alcohol usage is not like drug usage. It might be
> less addictive but it is still teribly destructive
> on the whole. The legality of it gives it a veneer
> of acceptability but it costs society far more
> than it gives back.
As the author points out, the Volstead Act was a national disaster. Prohibiting the use of alcohol did more damage to communities than alcohol.
>
> The biggest difference is in the addictiveness of
> drugs and the severity of the effects. I don't
> care how addictive nicotine is, people don't have
> a cigarette and then feel that the spider people
> are coming for them and they need to burn the
> house down.
>
> "Responsible use" of drugs like crack, meth, coke
> is a fantasy.
How do you know? "User" is not synonymous with "addict".
Other countries seem to get along pretty well without the (almost) universal prohibition on recreational drugs imposed in the US.
Throughout the EU the trend is towards decriminalization, or relaxed enforcement of laws against the use of illicit drugs.