British Government To Give Free Heroin To Addicts (Good idea for USA?)

CNS News ^ | December 04, 2002 | Mike Wendling

[Green Knight]

Nonsense---addicts rob to get drug money, which they wouldn't need in the scenario under discussion.

So you prefer government-sactioned robbery, instead? Taking money out of your pocket in order to pay for the habits of heroin addicts?

I really hate it when people say "the government is offering this for free". IT'S NOT FREE! It's ALL being paid for by the taxpayer. Why should MY money go to someone so they can get high and continue to leach off of me? Why should my tax money go towards subsidizing criminals? So what, then? Should we send checks to EVERY potential criminal? After all, if the government is giving them money then they have no reason to rob anyone, right? Let's make it easier on everyone by having the government do the robbing FOR them.

[robertpaulsen]

I tell lies? You may try backing that up if you can. You're free to retract that statement if you can't back it up, but I wouldn't ever expect a retraction from you.

Legalizing all drugs, pornography, prostitution, and gambling are all planks in the Libertarian platform. Maybe you don't agree with all of them -- I don't care because I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the LP.

And such a city would be the ideal location for a LP convention, since they could then showcase their philosophy. I was joking when I said it would be a great place to raise kids.

[robertpaulsen]

Now, now, MrLeRoy, are you trying to trick me with that question? I bet you are, since the whole thread has nothing to do with alcohol, and BOOM, up it comes.

You're asking me to compare alcohol, a socially acceptable legal product that has a long prominent U.S. history of use in customs, rituals, and social settings to illegal drugs? I don't get the connection.

[MrLeRoy]

So you prefer government-sactioned robbery, instead? Taking money out of your pocket in order to pay for the habits of heroin addicts?

As I already stated, "I'd prefer to simply legalize it and let addicts get their drug money the way alcohol addicts now do---collecting cans, panhandling, etc." But as I also said, even under the 'free' drug plan the government would take less, in dollars and liberty, than they do with the War On (Some) Drugs.

[MrLeRoy]

Now, now, MrLeRoy, are you trying to trick me with that question?

I'm probing the consistency of your principles; I hope you don't regard that as "trickery."

You're asking me to compare alcohol, a socially acceptable legal product that has a long prominent U.S. history of use in customs, rituals, and social settings to illegal drugs? I don't get the connection.

Here's the connection: alcohol is a deadly addictive substance, like some currently illegal drugs, so if we should worry about raising kids in a society where the latter are legal why shouldn't we worry about raising kids in a society where the former is legal? If alcohol's "long prominent U.S. history" makes its legality innocuous for kids, that is if anything an argument for drug legalization, since the illegality of drugs prevents formation of an aboveboard social role for them.

[Protagoras]

You're free to retract that statement if you can't back it up,

I seem to have you confused with someone else, so I retract and I apologise.

It was an easy mistake for me to make, your statement seemed at first glance to be one of those that attempt to say that libertarians are in favor of ilicit drug use, pornography, prostitution and gambling. When in fact, they are just not in favor of laws prohibiting them at the point of a gun.

You weren't trying to make that connection were you?

[robertpaulsen]

"You weren't trying to make that connection were you?"

Not at all. I realize that there is a difference between being against government legislation of an activity vs. being in favor of that activity.

For my information (not a trick question), are you against federal legislation of these activities, or all government legislation of these activities? In other words, at what level, if any, will you accept a majority will of the people?

[robertpaulsen]

"alcohol is a deadly addictive substance, like some currently illegal drugs,"

Well, if this is your sole criterion, then you're correct in your conclusion (ie. legalize deadly addictive substance "B", since deadly addictive substance "A" is legal). But I don't think this argument will garner many votes in a referendum.

Given the public's disdain for the smoking of cigarettes and cigars, I find it hard to believe that there will be any "aboveboard social role" for legal marijuana.

[Protagoras]

In other words, at what level, if any, will you accept a majority will of the people?

I will accept the majority will of the people on all levels, as long as it doesn't violate my rights.

[Protagoras]

But I don't think this argument will garner many votes in a referendum.

There seems to be a common thread in your posts.

[FreePaul]

Great idea. Give them all of the H they want. Only requirement would be that they stay in a compound while using it and until all of the effects have worn off (if ever). Free funerals for all involved. I want these people off our streets and the dealers put out of business. Can't think of a better way to start.

[Protagoras]

Great idea. Give them all of the H they want.

Great idea, with your money.

[thepitts]

The WOD,s is a big money scam, ending it will not be an easy task.

[MrLeRoy]

"alcohol is a deadly addictive substance, like some currently illegal drugs,"

Well, if this is your sole criterion,

What additional relevant criteria do you use?

I don't think this argument will garner many votes in a referendum.

If you have no rebuttal beyond <paraphrase>Don't think that---hardly anyone else thinks that</paraphrase>, then support for my argument will continue to grow.

Given the public's disdain for the smoking of cigarettes and cigars

How much of the public feels disdain for the smoking of cigarettes and cigars? (I don't.)

[FreePaul]

Wouldn't cost anything. With about one tenth of one percent of the War On (some) Drugs money we could buy more H than the addicts could use and build the retention camps to hold them until they quit in whatever manner.

[FreePaul]

You might check to find out when and why various "illegal drugs" became illegal. Some had a long history of use before the Government decided to rule them illegal. I believe that I have seen copies of ads for heroin and some other narcotics that were posted less than a hundred years ago. Many other "illegal drugs" were in common usage, legally, more recently than that.

[Protagoras]

Wouldn't cost anything.

Your right, it wouldn't cost ME anything, you are going to pay for it all. I assume you have agreed to pay any costs yourself, without tax money since you say it wouldn't cost anything.

So we agree. You pay all of it.

And what I really think is cool is that you are advocating the end of the WOD as well. Great idea! You are to be commended!

[MadIvan]

This scheme was tried in Liverpool - I believe the results showed that street crime and prostitution did drop a bit, but there was no noticeable decrease in the number of addicts. In fact, if I remember correctly, addicts came to Liverpool to get free heroin.

I would rather that this money was not spent on giving away heroin - this is a slippery slope that leads to things like retirement homes for junkies in the Netherlands.

Regards, Ivan

[robertpaulsen]

My question was:

"You're asking me to compare alcohol, a socially acceptable legal product that has a long prominent U.S. history of use in customs, rituals, and social settings to illegal drugs?"

Substituting heroin, cocaine, or even marijuana for alcohol in that statement doesn't work.

I realize that at one time, the drugs you mentioned were legal. They were then made illegal. When alcohol was made illegal, it only lasted for 13 years. The other drugs are still illegal. Why, do you think?

[FreePaul]

Why do I thinks that some drugs are still illegal? It's obvious. There is too much money in the drug business as it is presently conducted. If all of these drugs were legalized, even under the most restrictive proposals, look at the consequences. The drug dealers would be out of business as they know it. The money spent on illegal drugs wouldn't find it's way to politicians and public figures who promote the War On Drugs. Law enforcement would suffer the worst deflation anyone could imagine. Police officers, prosecutors, courts and prisons would have to live without the drug offenders. The economic consequences of legalizing even a part of the current "illegal drug" business would be a disaster for too many segments of our economy.