2
 
   
 

Hillary blows it

 
The anti-theist
 
Avatar
 
 
The anti-theist
Total Posts:  189
Joined  08-06-2007
 
 
 
30 March 2009 00:14
 
Carstonio - 29 March 2009 09:47 AM
The anti-theist - 29 March 2009 02:54 AM

I suppose I haven’t really heard the opposing facts.

The opposing argument is about which methods prevent or alleviate the most harm. Not only does prohibition fail to stop the spread of drugs, it increases the harm by discouraging addicts from seeking help and by giving organized crime a lucrative market. One wouldn’t just legalize or decriminalize drugs and leave it at that. One would do this as part of a strategy of treating drugs as a public health issue and not a law enforcement issue.

I just don’t see how it would be implemented and controlled. By public health do you mean a drug addict can walk in to a hospital and receive free drugs or would it be a holistic approach which includes counselling and treatment? Funded by the tax payer?

I don’t exactly see drug addicts lining up for help. Of the people I know or knew who took recreational drugs, all did it because it was fun. Not because “they were addicted”. They could stop any time by why should they?

Will drugs be available from a legitimate recreational drug store at a cheaper rate than available from drug dealers (sans treatment) the same as cigarettes and alcohol? Will the sellers be licensed?

I’m all for for it if it works. Show me how. Give me some of that critical thinking and evidence.

Please explain it to me.

Dom

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
Carstonio
Total Posts:  3135
Joined  26-04-2007
 
 
 
30 March 2009 18:37
 
The anti-theist - 30 March 2009 04:14 AM

By public health do you mean a drug addict can walk in to a hospital and receive free drugs or would it be a holistic approach which includes counselling and treatment?

I know of no one who advocates the former.

The anti-theist - 30 March 2009 04:14 AM

Of the people I know or knew who took recreational drugs, all did it because it was fun. Not because “they were addicted”. They could stop any time by why should they?

What do you mean by “recreational” drugs? Heroin and cocaine are highly addictive. Sure, people might start using them for recreational purposes. It’s almost like you don’t believe that chemical addiction exists. If that were the case, tobacco companies would be making a hell of a lot less money.

 
The anti-theist
 
Avatar
 
 
The anti-theist
Total Posts:  189
Joined  08-06-2007
 
 
 
30 March 2009 20:06
 
Carstonio - 30 March 2009 10:37 PM
The anti-theist - 30 March 2009 04:14 AM

By public health do you mean a drug addict can walk in to a hospital and receive free drugs or would it be a holistic approach which includes counselling and treatment?

I know of no one who advocates the former.

I was just asking the question and would it still be free drugs to addicts?

Carstonio - 30 March 2009 10:37 PM
The anti-theist - 30 March 2009 04:14 AM

Of the people I know or knew who took recreational drugs, all did it because it was fun. Not because “they were addicted”. They could stop any time by why should they?

What do you mean by “recreational” drugs? Heroin and cocaine are highly addictive. Sure, people might start using them for recreational purposes. It’s almost like you don’t believe that chemical addiction exists. If that were the case, tobacco companies would be making a hell of a lot less money.

I certainly do believe in addiction. That’s the point I was making!  Nobody ever admits that they have a problem with drugs. Just the opposite, as I illustrated. I was being facetious.

This still doesn’t tell me how it would work and I really would like to think it could.  long face

Dom

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
Carstonio
Total Posts:  3135
Joined  26-04-2007
 
 
 
31 March 2009 03:25
 
The anti-theist - 31 March 2009 12:06 AM

This still doesn’t tell me how it would work and I really would like to think it could.  long face

I see your point. I wasn’t stumping for any particular alternative. I was pointing out that our current approach is woefully ineffective.

 
2