Illegal drug addiction

[Visionary]

Do you think that if someone has an addiction to illegal drugs it should be looked at primarily as a criminal issue or as a health issue?
Your take on this and why.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1248, old post ID:15910

[Red Squirrel]

More of a health issue, since it does not really hurt anyone else. It should still be illegal though as long as authorities don't waste too much time enforcing it when they can fight crimes that do affect people such as rape, murders etc..

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1248, old post ID:15923

[Chris Vogel]

since it does not really hurt anyone else.

In many cases, I would have to disagree with you.

I think it should be looked at as more of a health issue. Prosecution isn’t very effective without medical care. I think society is sometimes too cold to drug addicts. They are human beings who need help. Everything else is secondary.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1248, old post ID:15928

[Joe]

Most people who do drugs also sell them so its both.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1248, old post ID:15929

[MrSelf]

Most people who do drugs also sell them so its both.

What?!? Well that's misinformed at best.... Maybe 40% of the people who do, deal as well, but that's a very high figure.


I think most people in America would be surprise to learn they are addicted to caffine, but that's ok, and it makes you feel better... until you stop. Many are addicted to cigarettes, but that's legal, and deadly. Addiction to food is gluttony, look at our obese. So many people are addicted to sex, and alcohol is legal, despite being more dangerous than most of the previous things mentioned.

I definately think it is a health issue. In a free society, people are allowed to rise and fall on their own, drug use is one of the ways, throughout history even, that both side have used as catalysts.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1248, old post ID:15933

[Joe]

Maybe where you are from.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1248, old post ID:15936

[FloodG8-9595]

Illegal drug addiction is no better or worse than Legal drug addiction. I will say that in SOME cases a drug can be harmfull to those around you but very few.

I'd personally rather have safe clean regulated drugs around. We should take advantage of the benifits (believe it or not) that most drugs have. While making sure that people have a way to get off of these drugs without sending them to prison. Some illegal drug users who are not addicted ie. Marijanna users for the most part. Have no reason to be sent to jail OR any kind of facility for recovery but that's another debate.

I say as long as Alcohol is out amoung the public and legal. We are Hypocrites for making most other drugs illegal.

Some drugs have absolutley no value whatsoever ie Crack, Smack ext.

Some are dangerous due to being highly addictive not to mention that they can simply kill you ie. Heroin, Cocain, ext.

Some drugs are less dangerous (almost non-dangerous) ie. Marijanna, LSD(in small amounts), MDMA(in small amounts),

LD-50 of MJ is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. To kill yourself with it you have to comsume 1,500 pounds of marijuana in a fifteen minuite period. This is needless to say impossible.

I can't find the LD 50 of Caffine like I wanted to but, from what I remember it's several times more deadly than some illegal drugs..

Anyhow.. that's all



Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1248, old post ID:15937

[Bookworm]

Some drugs have absolutley no value whatsoever ie Crack, Smack ext.

Some are dangerous due to being highly addictive not to mention that they can simply kill you ie. Heroin, Cocain, ext.

Is it okay to make just these illegal, then?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1248, old post ID:15941

[FloodG8-9595]

Techinally by the letter of what I believe they shouldn't be ILLEGAL but, they ARE damaging and bad for you.


A junkie is a junkie and if we take the drugs off the street and sell them in phamacys or stores they are 100 times more safe because they're regulated by the FDA. You also effectivly end the war on drugs and take out every drug dealer in the country by legalizing all drugs.. The problem is that you can't just legalize it you have to be willing to put the time in to fix the problem and educate people about drugs. Some people have the sick Idea that we HAVE educated people about drugs but, people who havn't been exposed to that life usually have HUGE missconceptions about the drugs in question. I talked to a girl the other day who thought that smoking weed could kill you and or addict you by doing it once (marijanna is not addictive nor can it kill you) .. it's a sad state of affairs when she says this to me while sipping a big ol can of sugar and caffine(Mountain Dew) to keep her awake and dosn't see whats funny about that.

So a Junkie is a junkie and like it or not unless we eat no fast food drink nothing but water and pretty much seclude yourself from the rest of the planet.. then we are all junkies as well

There are a lot of things that arn't illegal that can and will screw you up just as bad as anything that is. Check out some of the meds your doc gives you when your back hurts. Heroin was a drug to help people get off of Morphine at one point. Then there's Alcohol.. need I say any more than that? The War on Drugs is a hypocracy which has been engrained into our minds as a just and nobel cause. when in truth it's a waste of time, energy, money and people.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1248, old post ID:15949

[MrSelf]

Maybe where you are from.

Maybe in the United States. Where I am from, it is much less. Come on, think about it, if everyone dealt drug, there wouldn't be enough people buying to make any money. It's always more expensive to buy from others, you pay a mark up. Sorry, but it sound to me like you have some slanted information.

Some drugs have absolutley no value whatsoever ie Crack, Smack ext.

Some are dangerous due to being highly addictive not to mention that they can simply kill you ie. Heroin, Cocain, ext.

Is it okay to make just these illegal, then?

I believe the state can make anything illegal(that doesn't violate our constitutional rights), and the people should have control over the state. I wouldn't support the federal government making it illegal, but I would support each state.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1248, old post ID:15950

[Joe]

Maybe where you are from.

Maybe in the United States. Where I am from, it is much less. Come on, think about it, if everyone dealt drug, there wouldn't be enough people buying to make any money. It's always more expensive to buy from others, you pay a mark up. Sorry, but it sound to me like you have some slanted information.

I am reallly talking about isolated areas, so i can't comment on the whole US. Some people buy and then sell adn finally the drugs they are doing just aint cutting it and move on to more powerful drugs.



Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1248, old post ID:15955

[Bookworm]

Maybe where you are from.

Maybe in the United States. Where I am from, it is much less. Come on, think about it, if everyone dealt drug, there wouldn't be enough people buying to make any money. It's always more expensive to buy from others, you pay a mark up. Sorry, but it sound to me like you have some slanted information.

I am reallly talking about isolated areas, so i can't comment on the whole US. Some people buy and then sell adn finally the drugs they are doing just aint cutting it and move on to more powerful drugs.

So if we made drugs legal, wouldn't it be likely that more people would experiment with them. After all, if they are legal, they must be okay. That's the attitude we have with caffiene. And if more people experiment, then more people would find the drugs they are doing just aint cutting it and they would move on to more powerful drugs.That just doesn't sound to me like a worthwhile situation.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1248, old post ID:15961

[FloodG8-9595]

Maybe in the United States. Where I am from, it is much less. Come on, think about it, if everyone dealt drug, there wouldn't be enough people buying to make any money. It's always more expensive to buy from others, you pay a mark up. Sorry, but it sound to me like you have some slanted information.

I am reallly talking about isolated areas, so i can't comment on the whole US. Some people buy and then sell adn finally the drugs they are doing just aint cutting it and move on to more powerful drugs.

So if we made drugs legal, wouldn't it be likely that more people would experiment with them. After all, if they are legal, they must be okay. That's the attitude we have with caffiene. And if more people experiment, then more people would find the drugs they are doing just aint cutting it and they would move on to more powerful drugs.That just doesn't sound to me like a worthwhile situation.

Ok let me say this.. I'm not a fan of life thretening drugs. personally I feel we've gotten ourselves into a rut with drugs. The only reason that youth want to experiment with things like Heroin, Coke, MJ ect. is because we as a society put SO much focus on so few of the dangerous drugs out there. I'm saying if you want to make consuming drugs criminal a thing then I feel you've cossed the line. Treat addiction as addiction.. treat the drugs like drugs exluding Marijanna because it's a freaking plant (no adatives no preservatives) so you treat that like a less dangerous tabacco.. So recreational drugs are probally a bad idea in general.. it hasn't stopped people from drinking soda and smoking cigarettes why should the federal government regulate so hypocriticly (or at all on what I do to myself).

If your state wants to make Coke Heroin and such illegal... Great! thats a good idea make the penalties similar to precription fraud

If MN wants to outlaw Caffine and Tabacco but wants Heroin legal.. Also fine..

I would personally want to live in a state where the following drugs were decriminalized. Marijanna, LSD, MDMA... I'm sure there are a couple of others as well.. and dealing drugs like Coke and Heroin were treated as non-violent crime instead of treating it worse than spousal abuse and rape.

The federal governemt should remove all legislation in regard to controlled substances and reliquish those decisions (not to mention a whole load of others) to the state level. In some cases (ie Montana) this may even be broken down by county or town level due to low population.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1248, old post ID:15962

[Bookworm]

Now you are really confusing me. What difference does it make whether a drug is criminalized by the federal government or by a state government? Suppose Minnesota outlaws heroin, but North Dakota makes it legal, wouldn't there be additional problems with drug addicts crossing state borders to get their preferred stuff?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1248, old post ID:15969

[FloodG8-9595]

Primarily because the federal goverment has no right to make such laws. In fact they have no right to make most of the laws that we so ignorantly let them make.

Things work better on a smaller scale. You can't generalize, Most people arn't going to want most drugs legal . I can't imagine anyone would treat Heroin or Cocain like cigarettes and sell them at a store even if they were legal anything that potentialy dangerous would have to be doled out by a pharmacy of some sort. Things like weed should be taken out of the criminal system because it does little to no harm.
People are under the mistaken idea that drugs ruin a community.. it's usually the types of people those drugs bring with them (ie dealers) who would be reduced to a much smaller number if we stopped criminalizing drugs like we do assault.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1248, old post ID:15977

[FloodG8-9595]

Now you are really confusing me. What difference does it make whether a drug is criminalized by the federal government or by a state government? Suppose Minnesota outlaws heroin, but North Dakota makes it legal, wouldn't there be additional problems with drug addicts crossing state borders to get their preferred stuff?

I doubt that there would be that big of a difference in thought in that small of an area. I don't think there would be that many places who would outright legalize all drugs but if someone wanted to it's that states right to do so and anyone who wants to be a drug head can move to that state simply because that's easier than trafficing the drug to another state where the demand is low because all the drug heads moved to places they could do their drug.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1248, old post ID:15978

[MrSelf]

Now you are really confusing me. What difference does it make whether a drug is criminalized by the federal government or by a state government? Suppose Minnesota outlaws heroin, but North Dakota makes it legal, wouldn't there be additional problems with drug addicts crossing state borders to get their preferred stuff?

I doubt that there would be that big of a difference in thought in that small of an area. I don't think there would be that many places who would outright legalize all drugs but if someone wanted to it's that states right to do so and anyone who wants to be a drug head can move to that state simply because that's easier than trafficing the drug to another state where the demand is low because all the drug heads moved to places they could do their drug.

There is a reason the U.S. is suppose to work the way it was set up. The federal government concentrates on federal issues, as outlined inthe constitution, and the rest is left to the states.

Congress' job:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Executive's job:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States;
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for

Judicial's job:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Finally, I'll end with Article 9 and 10 of the bill of rights.

Amendment IX


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

This means that according to article IX, the federal government can't use it's legislative power to take away rights given to the states in article X, which are all areas not mentioned in the constitution or added via ammendment. That's why we have the ammendment process. They have a job, congress has a job, the courts have a job, the rest are rights that the states have to make. It really makes me lose all faith in the republican party when most of it's supporters don't even know what the ideology is that they are claiming to believe in. The very heart of the republican doctrine is that less government, so that localized regions can make decisions more efficiently and more representative of the people, is key. That we are allowed to do what we want in the privacy of our own home. Personal freedoms.

Suppose Minnesota outlaws heroin, but North Dakota makes it legal, wouldn't there be additional problems with drug addicts crossing state borders to get their preferred stuff?

Why doesn't that person just move to ND? If they are stupid enough to try to travel to get it, then they should get caught when they transport it across borders. Nevada doesn't seem to have much of a problem with prostitution, 10 years after it was legalized, nor does California with medical marijuana, unless you count the federal government making issues that don't exist.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1248, old post ID:15987

[FloodG8-9595]

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1248, old post ID:15998

[Bookworm]

The power of Congress to regulate commerce among the states can be interpreted rather broadly, I would think.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1248, old post ID:16031

[fragged one]

The power of Congress to regulate commerce among the states can be interpreted rather broadly, I would think.

it doesn't say within, it says among.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1248, old post ID:16038

[MrSelf]

The power of Congress to regulate commerce among the states can be interpreted rather broadly, I would think.

You would be correct, that is what has been interpreted broadly, but as fragged pointed out, it says among states, not within. Also, the Supreme court has ruled that this specifical clause is dealing with commerce only, so the regulation of monitary transactions between state lines is what this deals with, in making the United States an economical unit. However, it is this clause that politicians often use to justify whatever it is they want to do that isn't convered in the constitution. All it takes is one supreme court ruling to set everything right, but the correct question must be asked first.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1248, old post ID:16043