The War on Drugs

[HaloMagic]

What gives you the right to control someone else's life? Simply carrying a bigger stick? I don't subscribe to that thought process.

[mtangelsfan]

I don't probably agree with tank on this overall issue, but you pretty much ignored the whole point and argument of his post HM.

Not really fair or respectful

[HaloMagic]

I get the point of the post. The point of my post was that in my opinion the point is invalid because I have no right to control your behavior regardless of some much desired outcome. I certainly didn't intend for it to be disrespectful. If it's unfair I can take that, though, as I don't see anyway to answer the question fairly as it's a question I don't believe can have an answer.

[mp170.6]

Many conservatives opposed to abolishing the war on drugs have some connection to law enforcement. 

 

Cops convince their relatives and friends how terrible it would be -- for all of the reasons previously discussed -- when the real motive is the protection of law enforcement jobs.  Abolishing the war on drugs would put 100,000 cops out of work. 

 

I say this from experience with cops in the family.  It's amazing how their talking points are virtually identical, as if their union gives them pamphlets on what to say. 

[Tank]

What gives you the right to control someone else's life? Simply carrying a bigger stick? I don't subscribe to that thought process.

 

so if some guy loaded up on coke drives his car and kills three members of your family, you're okay with it because that's the price of his individual choice?

 

your right to abuse your body with drugs shouldn't affect any of my rights. the moment you or anyone else gets behind the wheel of a car while under the influence runs a very high risk of affecting my rights not to be affected by your actions.

[mp170.6]

I lean libertarian on many issues, but not as much on this one. 

 

To say it's a victimless crime is just plain wrong.  Every one of us pays the price when someone on drugs overdoses and has to be hospitalized.  Our medical expenses are higher to pay for these people's bad choices because the offenders are often uninsured.  Additionally, whenever you call 911 you're helping to justify more cops and more firefighters on the streets, costing taxpayers on average between $175,000 and $200,000 a year EACH.

 

I would favor legalizing drug use if they first changed the laws so that insurance providers (of all types) are not obligated to cover payments for illicit drug use.   Don't have insurance?  Then too bad, you better get a job and pay the bill. 

 

If somebody if stupid enough to cause themselves serious bodily harm, they better be prepared to pay for their healthcare. 

[RallyMo]

I lean libertarian on many issues, but not as much on this one. 

 

To say it's a victimless crime is just plain wrong.  Every one of us pays the price when someone on drugs overdoses and has to be hospitalized.  Our medical expenses are higher to pay for these people's bad choices because the offenders are often uninsured.  Additionally, whenever you call 911 you're helping to justify more cops and more firefighters on the streets, costing taxpayers on average between $175,000 and $200,000 a year EACH.

 

I would favor legalizing drug use if they first changed the laws so that insurance providers (of all types) are not obligated to cover payments for illicit drug use.   Don't have insurance?  Then too bad, you better get a job and pay the bill. 

 

If somebody if stupid enough to cause themselves serious bodily harm, they better be prepared to pay for their healthcare. 

 

You're all over the place here.

 

The condition you lay out for being in favor of legalizing use do (next to) nothing to address the primary concern that you mention in the sentences that are just above it, and even then, your conditions for accepting legalization are kinda wonky as well.

 

I think you should just stick to "no."

[mp170.6]

You're all over the place here.

 

The condition you lay out for being in favor of legalizing use do (next to) nothing to address the primary concern that you mention in the sentences that are just above it, and even then, your conditions for accepting legalization are kinda wonky as well.

 

I think you should just stick to "no."

 

Not sure if it's Firefox or the new forum software but my reply is missing an entire paragraph.  Holding down the backspace key wipes out entire sentences and paragraphs at the blink of an eye when all I intended was to delete a few words. 

 

My bottom line is I don't think drug use is a victimless crime.  Complete strangers have to pay for higher numbers of police and paramedics to deal with irresponsible drug use.  Complete strangers have to pay higher medical costs on account of drug users who overdose and have to be hospitalized.  If they make it out alive, these drug users should not have the luxury of depending on their insurance company to pick up the tab.  Being uninsured and poor is no excuse either, get a job and pay everybody back in full so the rest of us are not punished by your actions.   

 

I don't know if people realize how often fire and police departments respond to drug overdose 911 calls.  I've been told that here in Orange County it's about ten calls per hour.  Even if you killed the war on drugs, police would still be dispatched to the call for the safety of the firefighter paramedics trying to render aid. 

 

So yeah, it's a free country.  If you want to put toxic substances in your body, go ahead, but be prepared to pay for the paramedics, police, ambulance, hospital, doctor, and rehabilitation expenses out of your own pocket.  This is only fair. 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

If we made everything illegal that overuse of could cause health problems, we would criminalize everything up to and including food and water. As far as drug users paying for health care completely out of their own pockets, if everyone took that attitude we would all eventually go bankrupt if we lived long enough. Health problems eventually catch up with all of us. Some of them are self inflicted through poor lifestyle choices.

[VariousCrap]

I support legalizing marijuana and having the same rules for it as alcohol.

 

Legalizing the rest of drugs?  I don't support that.

[mp170.6]

If we made everything illegal that overuse of could cause health problems, we would criminalize everything up to and including food and water. As far as drug users paying for health care completely out of their own pockets, if everyone took that attitude we would all eventually go bankrupt if we lived long enough. Health problems eventually catch up with all of us. Some of them are self inflicted through poor lifestyle choices.

 

Do you not believe in personal accountability? 

 

Right now, our healthcare system rewards people for making bad choices no matter how much it costs.  I have a cousin who served in Vietnam.  He has since taken very poor care of himself because whatever ailment afflicts him, the VA Hospital pays 100% of the cost.  My aunt on Medicare is the same way.  She won't listen to the doctors about taking her blood pressure medication.  Every couple months she ends up in the ER because of it.  She has no incentive to listen because the government practically pays for everything.  I love my family, but this is a textbook example of why America is so screwed up. 

 

The same problem exists among drug users.  All they care about is themselves the moment they light up.  This mentality has to change if we're going to get serious about legalizing drugs. 

[HaloMagic]

I believe in personal accountability. I don't however, believe that illness caused by the use of drugs is somehow worse than other things like consumption of unhealthy foods or injuries caused by risky sports. It's all just decisions that we make in life. Nothing is inherently worse than something else. Ultimately if health insurance providers choose not to cover it then it should be handled in the same way as other things they choose not to cover or uninsured people. If we don't want to pay any money for uninsured illnesses that's fine with me. But make it because it's uninsured, not because it's use of drugs. Government should not be in the business of influencing behavior if it doesn't have to. This is a case where, in my opinion, they don't have to.

[RallyMo]

Where do we draw the line?

What if parents who receive genetic counseling are told that if they decide to get pregnant that the child will likely, but not certainly, have serious and extremely costly long term health issues?

Should policy be able to dictate that a child will not be covered if it is born as such?

Should the child be covered if it's healthy?

[YouthofToday]

I think we should make gun ownership illegal because some children get killed every now and then. Gun ownership isn't a victimless crime. I also think we shouldn't be allowed to drive a car, ever, because some people might die in an auto accident.

This post is sarcasm.

[mp170.6]

I believe in personal accountability. I don't however, believe that illness caused by the use of drugs is somehow worse than other things like consumption of unhealthy foods or injuries caused by risky sports. It's all just decisions that we make in life. Nothing is inherently worse than something else. Ultimately if health insurance providers choose not to cover it then it should be handled in the same way as other things they choose not to cover or uninsured people. If we don't want to pay any money for uninsured illnesses that's fine with me. But make it because it's uninsured, not because it's use of drugs. Government should not be in the business of influencing behavior if it doesn't have to. This is a case where, in my opinion, they don't have to.

 

Nobody plays sports with the intent of harming themselves, and unhealthy foods still nourish the body to some degree.

 

The same cannot be said for drugs.  Nobody needs pot, cocaine, heroin, meth, tobacco, or alcohol to survive.  With the exception of drinking in moderation and possibly using pot in moderation, people who indulge in these things do so with the full knowledge they are causing harm to their body. 

 

I think I agree with the rest of your reply, and let me clarify my stance.  I was never suggesting the government tell insurance providers what not to cover.  My understanding of the current system (and Obamacare) is that the government tells insurance providers they cannot discriminate based on medical condition or lifestyle choices.  I think this is wrong. 

 

Let the insurance companies offer whatever coverage they want and let consumers decide beforehand if the plan fits their needs.  For example, because I don't smoke (and never have) the chances of me getting lung cancer are greatly diminished.  I don't see a need for my insurance provider to cover lung cancer like they do other things.  It would be nice to have a $100,000 deductible on lung cancer in return for reduced premiums.  I'm not a drug user either, so a $1 million deductible for conditions caused by illicit drug use would be perfectly acceptable.  I would even favor my insurance provider offering discounts based on BMI verified and reported by my doctor. 

 

What I find ironic is that automotive insurance more or less uses the model described above and yet nobody ever complains about it. 

[HaloMagic]

Nobody snorts coke trying to overdose. Nobody needs snowboarding to survive. You do damage to your body by eating McDonald's. Same argument.

[mtangelsfan]

I pretty much agree, but you haven't really addressed one of the main points of many, snowboarders don't pose risk to the public like many who are under the influence of drugs.

[mp170.6]

Nobody snorts coke trying to overdose. Nobody needs snowboarding to survive. You do damage to your body by eating McDonald's. Same argument.

 

Why do people snort coke then?  Certainly it's not for survival like food or water. 

 

The overwhelming majority of snowboarders come home without spending time in a hospital and there's no long-term health effects inherent to snowboarding like there is to coke. 

 

You don't damage your body any worse eating McDonalds occasionally than you do eating junk food purchased at the grocery store. 

[HaloMagic]

People snort coke to get high. Why should getting high be frowned upon? Why is "survival or food" somehow better? What is the drug user doesn't want survival or food? Why should we be attempting to steer him towards a path that WE feel is best for him? Why can't he decide on his own?

The overwhelming majority of people who have used a drug spend no time in a hospital, too. Also, I'm interested what your cutoff is. What percent of people performing a certain activity have to be harmed before you're cool with treating it differently than something else? 10%? 25? 51%? I'm interested in your number as well your rationale in choosing that number.

Junk food at McDonald's and the grocery store does damage your body. Maybe not enough for you. Once again, I'm interested in how much one's body has to be damaged by an activity before we handle it differently. Please provide your logic on this one as well.

[mp170.6]

People snort coke to get high. Why should getting high be frowned upon? Why is "survival or food" somehow better? What is the drug user doesn't want survival or food? Why should we be attempting to steer him towards a path that WE feel is best for him? Why can't he decide on his own?

The overwhelming majority of people who have used a drug spend no time in a hospital, too. Also, I'm interested what your cutoff is. What percent of people performing a certain activity have to be harmed before you're cool with treating it differently than something else? 10%? 25? 51%? I'm interested in your number as well your rationale in choosing that number.

Junk food at McDonald's and the grocery store does damage your body. Maybe not enough for you. Once again, I'm interested in how much one's body has to be damaged by an activity before we handle it differently. Please provide your logic on this one as well.

 

As I've been arguing this whole time, there's no health benefit or even a break-even point to using illicit drugs.  Long term damage can result from even occasional use.

 

I'm fine with people doing whatever they want with their lives, but their behavior shouldn't come back to punish others.  This is exactly what happens when drug users need medical treatment for doing  something that had no beneficial purpose to begin with.  How do you justify everybody else paying higher taxes and higher insurance premiums so that drug users can continue to behave irresponsibly?

 

If you want to get high, go right ahead, but you shouldn't have the luxury of taxpayers covering your health problems later.  And your insurance company (if you have insurance) shouldn't be compelled to pay drug related claims if they choose not to. 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Do you not believe in personal accountability? 

 

I believe that our health care system is already a train wreck because insurance companies have been allowed to pick and choose what, and who, they will and will not cover. If I am born with, or develop, a condition that would cost an insurance company too much money, they simply cancel me and leave me to flap in the breeze. We have the most expensive health care system in the world, but it is far from the best based upon any measure of outcomes you care to look at.

[mp170.6]

I believe that our health care system is already a train wreck because insurance companies have been allowed to pick and choose what, and who, they will and will not cover. If I am born with, or develop, a condition that would cost an insurance company too much money, they simply cancel me and leave me to flap in the breeze. We have the most expensive health care system in the world, but it is far from the best based upon any measure of outcomes you care to look at.

 

Why shouldn't insurance companies be allowed to do this? 

 

They're businesses, not charitable organizations.  There's only so much money to go around. 

[HaloMagic]

I agree that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay. And I agree insurance companies should be able to decide what they want to cover. But when you say "no beneficial purpose" what exactly do you mean? Many medicine are derived from or synthesized to replicate some of the effects of illicit drugs. Marijuana increases appetite in people, something extremely helpful for cancer patients. Diamorphine (quite literally heroin) is given to women in labor in the UK to ease the pain. That shouldn't be a huge shock as we have extensive knowledge in America of how good opiates are at relieving pain. Ketamine, the horse tranquilizer, has been shown to help people with severe depression.

Also, what "beneficial purpose" does skateboarding serve? Or having recreational sex? Or eating a McDouble? Lastly, why does an activity have to have a "beneficial purpose"? Why do you attach such a negative stigma to drug use? And what if it's not beneficial to you but is to others. What would give you to right to deny them usage of it?

As far as your line about long-term effects, many athletes, even amateur athletes, end up doing damage to their body simply through performing the activity they compete in. Cartilage wears down, joints flare up. Should they not be allowed to perform those things because they could have negative long-term effects and there is no "beneficial purpose" to the activity?

It's all just choices we make in life. You spoke earlier about personal accountability and how mindsets would have to change before we could begin to move forward. And I agree. Both on the personal accountability side and on the mindset you are demonstrating right now. You seem to believe that if someone has a different opinion on how they should live their life than you (i.e. one that involves drugs instead of kite boarding and Double Doubles) then they are wrong and their behavior should be viewed in a less respected manner than yours. I reject that thought. People have free choice and complete minds to help them choose. To assume that you are making a better choice than them is to assume that you and them are the same and have the same desires and wishes. This is foolish thought. People are different and have the right and ability to decide for themselves what they want most out of life. If it's a long life with a family and a stable job then good for them. And if it's burning the candle at both ends and flaming out by the age of 25 then good for them, too. That wasn't the decision I made but why should I discourage others from doing so if they desire to?

[arch stanton]

If I was to search for a starting point to discuss what could be legalized, or at least decriminalized, it would depend on the level of dependency that is associated with them. The main difference I seem to have with most people is that I think the federal level is a terrible starting point for anything that you actually want to address and solve.

[mp170.6]

I agree that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay. And I agree insurance companies should be able to decide what they want to cover. But when you say "no beneficial purpose" what exactly do you mean? Many medicine are derived from or synthesized to replicate some of the effects of illicit drugs. Marijuana increases appetite in people, something extremely helpful for cancer patients. Diamorphine (quite literally heroin) is given to women in labor in the UK to ease the pain. That shouldn't be a huge shock as we have extensive knowledge in America of how good opiates are at relieving pain. Ketamine, the horse tranquilizer, has been shown to help people with severe depression.

Also, what "beneficial purpose" does skateboarding serve? Or having recreational sex? Or eating a McDouble? Lastly, why does an activity have to have a "beneficial purpose"? Why do you attach such a negative stigma to drug use? And what if it's not beneficial to you but is to others. What would give you to right to deny them usage of it?

As far as your line about long-term effects, many athletes, even amateur athletes, end up doing damage to their body simply through performing the activity they compete in. Cartilage wears down, joints flare up. Should they not be allowed to perform those things because they could have negative long-term effects and there is no "beneficial purpose" to the activity?

It's all just choices we make in life. You spoke earlier about personal accountability and how mindsets would have to change before we could begin to move forward. And I agree. Both on the personal accountability side and on the mindset you are demonstrating right now. You seem to believe that if someone has a different opinion on how they should live their life than you (i.e. one that involves drugs instead of kite boarding and Double Doubles) then they are wrong and their behavior should be viewed in a less respected manner than yours. I reject that thought. People have free choice and complete minds to help them choose. To assume that you are making a better choice than them is to assume that you and them are the same and have the same desires and wishes. This is foolish thought. People are different and have the right and ability to decide for themselves what they want most out of life. If it's a long life with a family and a stable job then good for them. And if it's burning the candle at both ends and flaming out by the age of 25 then good for them, too. That wasn't the decision I made but why should I discourage others from doing so if they desire to?

 

Beneficial purpose means exactly what it says.  It may vary for some people, but I've never heard anyone say in hindsight that using cocaine, or heroin, or meth was a good choice and that it improved their lives.  

 

I don't know why you're comparing illicit drugs with prescription drugs just because they're similar in structure.  The latter is a refined version used under the guidance of a trained physician.  And as you pointed out, the latter version is for limited medicinal purposes, not recreational use. 

 

Skateboarding is beneficial for transportation and exercise.

Eating a McDouble provides energy for the body. 

 

If you don't like my characterization of drug use, why are you bringing up all these other things like eating at McDonalds to poke holes in my logic?  You're doing the same thing you're accusing me of doing by lumping everybody who eats at McDonalds into one category.  I don't know if you realize this but McDonalds is actually one of the more healthy fast food restaurants.